CW 4553/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4553/2010 Nrisingh Behari Pareek Versus XEN PWD Sikar & Ors Date of Order ::: 26/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Govind Gupta, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.04/05/2007 (Ann.9) whereby appropriate Government (respondent authority) declined to make reference of the dispute. It is relevant to observe that against the order of retrenchment, petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP- 1684/1987 which was disposed of by Division Bench after hearing Counsel for parties holding the order of termination as illegal being in contravention of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) vide order dt. 12/08/1988; however, the employer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards wages of one year in lieu of reinstatement, payable within two months failing which it shall carry interest @ 15% per annum till payment. It appears that the workman was not properly advised despite judgment delivered by Division Bench (supra) holding that in lieu of reinstatement, he is entitled for adequate lump sum compensation and in this view CW 4553/10 //2// whereof, after there being failure report, appropriate Government examined the material on record and declined to make reference U/s 12(5) of ID Act. However, the petitioner again filed application before Conciliation officer and second time when appropriate Government declined to make reference, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. Once the issue being finally settled by Division Bench vide judgment (Ann.1), there being no industrial dispute subsisted requiring any adjudication under the ID Act. Such a dispute was certainly stale one and this Court has gone through the order impugned and does not find any error being committed while passing the order impugned dt.04/05/2007 (Ann.9) by appropriate Government, which may call for interference in equitable jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 4553CW2010July26DsID-S12.doc