JUDGMENT 1. - As similar question of law is involved in a common set of facts, all the writ petitions are decided by this common Judgment. 2. In all above writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Kota, on applications filed by the concerned-workmen under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not in dispute that an Industrial Dispute was raised by the General Secretary, Nagar Parishad, Employees Union, Kota, in regard to daily wages employees. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, vide Notification dated 26.3.1979. The dispute as referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication is being quoted hereasunder : HINDI MATTER 500196 3. After ta king evidence of both the parties and hearing the arguments, the Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 18.3.1987, in case No. IT. 40/1979, answered the reference in the following terms : HINDI MATTER 4. The said award dated 18.3.1987 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court. This Court vide order dated 20.11.1991, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3481/1988, modified the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent that all daily wages employees were to be made permanent after six months from the date of the initial appointment. Further such employees should be given regular pay-scale from the date of the regularisation and also given all benefits which are being given to the regular permanent employees. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge was further challenged before the Division Bench and ultimately even the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 6.4.1993. Meaning thereby the directions given by this Court on 20.11.1991, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3418/1988, become final and binding on the parties concerned. 5. The respondents concerned-workmen in the above writ petitions filed individual applications under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court concerned wherein arrears of wages on the basis of award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 18.3.1987 were claimed. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the respondents concerned-workmen had been regularised on different dates and they were claiming arrears from the date of initial appointment on daily wages till the date of regularisation of their service. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the respondents concerned-workmen had been regularised on different dates and they were claiming arrears from the date of initial appointment on daily wages till the date of regularisation of their service. The Labour Court, allowed the applications of the respondent-workmen under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, relying on the directions given by the learned Single Judge on dated 20.11.1991, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3481/1988 and treating the concerned- workmen as permanent after completion of six months from the initial date of appointment computed the arrears till the date of regularisation of the concerned-workmen. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, mainly on the following grounds : "(i) That the respondent concerned-workmen in the present petitions were not the concerned-workmen in the earlier Industrial Dispute, decided by the Industrial Tribunal and modified by this Court vide order dated 20.1.1991; (ii) That the respondent-concerned-workmen were not in service at the time of making of earlier reference by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on dated 18.5.1987, is not applicable on the present concerned-respondents. (iii) That there is no adjudication by a Competent Court in regard to the entitlement on the principle of equal pay for equal work, so far as the present respondent concerned-workmen are concerned. 7. In this regard the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another, reported in 1995(1) Supreme Court Cases 235 . 8. After having carefully gone through the whole material on record, in my considerd opinion none of the grounds raised by the petitioner has any force and has to be considered only to be rejected. As has already been mentioned above, there was a general dispute which had been raised by the Union, concerning all the daily wages employees working in Municipal Board, Kota. The award having reached finality after modification by this Court vide Judgment dated 20.11.1991 and duly approved upto the Apex Court is binding on not only the daily wages employees working in Municipal Board, Kota, prior to raising of the Industrial Dispute but also on the employees appointed/engaged thereafter. The award having reached finality after modification by this Court vide Judgment dated 20.11.1991 and duly approved upto the Apex Court is binding on not only the daily wages employees working in Municipal Board, Kota, prior to raising of the Industrial Dispute but also on the employees appointed/engaged thereafter. It cannot be said or even approved by any stretch of imagination that one set of employees shall be governed by a particular set of conditions and another set will have different conditions. More so, the reference made by the State Government as well as the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, nowhere confines itself to a particular set of workmen. Once this Court vide Judgment dated 20.11.1991, while modifying the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, has directed the petitioner to regularise all daily wages employees after completion of six months from the date of initial appointment and give them all the benefits and pay-scales which is being given to the permanent employees from the date of their regularisation, the whole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner loses force that the above directions have not been made applicable on the present respondent concerned-workmen. So far as the Judgment of the Apex Court cited by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case because there has been a proper adjudication by a Competent Court in regard to all daily wages employes of the Municipal Council, Kota and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, having reached finality after the decision of the Apex Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents concerned-workmen have to be treated as covered by the award of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the directions given by this Court on 20.11.1991. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rajasthan Class IV Servants Service Rules and has submitted that regular benefits and pay-scales can only be given after regularisation on sanctioned posts. This submission has also no substance in view of clear directions given by this Court on dated 20.11.1991 which are duly approved by the Apex Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rajasthan Class IV Servants Service Rules and has submitted that regular benefits and pay-scales can only be given after regularisation on sanctioned posts. This submission has also no substance in view of clear directions given by this Court on dated 20.11.1991 which are duly approved by the Apex Court. In view of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 18.3.1987, which has been modified by this Court on dated 20.11.1991, all the respondent concerned workmen have gained a vested right and are entitled to all the benefits as directed by this Court. The Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has a very limited jurisdiction and has only to calculate and compute the amount in favour of the concerned-workmen. Once the entitlement is proved before the Labour Court, the Court has only to determine the exact amount due in favour of the concerned-workmen under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is rather very unfortunate that instead of complying with the directions of this Court, the petitioner is dragging the concerned- workmen in further litigation unnecessarily. 10. So far as calculation made by the Labour Court is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the petitioner nor the amounts so-claimed under different heads, have been disputed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I find no error or illegality in the orders passed by the Labour Court, under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are under challenge in the above writ petitions so as to call for any interference by this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. The writ petitions are devoid of any force and are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- in each writ petition.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******