Honble MUKHERJI, C.J.–The appellants services were terminated by order dated 27.9.80 and thereafter he was reinstated by the Public Health and Engineering Department at Jalore on 14.2.83. One of the conditions in the reinstatement order was that the period in between 27.9.80 and 14.2.83 should be treated as leave without pay, although the writ petitioner/appellants services would be deemed to be continuous. This order was accepted by the petitioner and he reported for duty on 15.2.83. Thereafter he filed a claim petition before the Labour Court claiming wages from 27.9.80 to 14.2.83 under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner himself accepted the order and joined duties in pursuance thereof from 15.2.83 and it was not permissible for him to impugn the order of reinstatement which was a conditional one when it was accepted by him. The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition was filed by the writ-petitioner also did not accept the contention of the writ petitioner for claim under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to be justifiable in law and did not find any infirmity in the order of Labour Court so as to interfere. That apart, an application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed more than 9 years after he joined his duties. He himself agreed to the order of reinstatement on condition that the period in between 27.9.80 and 14.2.83 would be deemed to be a period of continuous service, even though he would not be duly paid for this period. (3). We do not find it proper and necessary that we should exercise the appellate powers over the learned Single Judges decision which is the subject matter of appeal before us. The special appeal stands dismissed accordingly.