JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the award of the Labour Court Ex.R 9 and alongwith the challenge to the award Ex.P 9, he has also made two assertions in the writ petition. One pertains to regularisation of the services of the petitioner and another in regard to payment of salary in the regular pay scale to the petitioner on the principle of equal pay for equal work of the post on which he was working. 2. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent Corporation as Assistant in the office in pursuance of Annex. R. 1 a scheme floated by the respondents to provide assistance to the over burdened staff and by that they employed persons on hourly wage basis. He remained in the employment from 15.9.1984 to 11.11.1987 only on hourly wage basis. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he did not discharge the duties on hourly wages basis but worked from 10 A.M. to 5 RM. and, therefore, he has discharged the functions of a regular Junior Assistant in the department. Since he has discharged the duties of Junior Assistant from 10 A.M. to 5 RM. and discharged all those functions which the regularly recruited Junior Assistants were doing he is entitled to salary in the regular pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work and is also entitled to regularisation because he was initial employed in the year 1984 and now in 1999 it becomes 15 years. As regards challenge to the award it is submitted that though reinstatement has been ordered by the Tribunal but no reason has been given to award the financial benefit to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. He is entitled to full salary. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the action of the respondents and has stressed that the petitioner was not a regularly recruited employee. He was engaged only on hourly wage basis to assist the over burdened staff. However, he has been permitted to take up the qualifying departmental examination for being appointed as regular Junior Assistant but he failed in the departmental examination and his failure in the departmental examination has resulted into not employing him on regular basis and, therefore, he was continued on hourly wage basis. Since the petitioner is not qualified enough to pass the departmental examination he cannot claim the relief of regularisation. Since the petitioner is not qualified enough to pass the departmental examination he cannot claim the relief of regularisation. 5. The further case of the respondents is that he was engaged on hourly wage basis and the payment has been made on the basis of number of hours for which the petitioner had served the respondents. Vouchers in this regard were placed before the Tribunal. Mode of Payment was clearly exhibited. 6. The case of the petitioner that he has been regularly discharging his duties from 10 A.M. to 5 RM. has been disputed by the respondents. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged on hourly basis. The petitioner places reliance on such cases of the Supreme Court where the questions raised by the petitioner were not in dispute and, therefore, those cases cannot be made the basis for grant of any relief to the petitioner. All those questions which have been raised by the petitioner have been disputed by the respondents firstly that he was not a regularly appointed man, secondly he failed in the qualifying departmental examination as and when they were held and thirdly he has never been paid salary in the regular scale of pay. Further assertion of the respondents in this regard is that there is a misjoinder of causes of action. This writ petition has been principally filed to challenge the award of the Tribunal. While challenging the award, if the petitioner seeks other collateral reliefs then it becomes a misjoinder of causes of action. The petitioner could have raised all those questions separately in another writ petition but in the present writ petition he could not be permitted to agitate all those questions. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Supreme Court decisions rendered in the cases of Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and others (1986) 1 SCC 439 and has also placed reliance on Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and others (1988) 1 SCC 122 . In all these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated in favour of the petitioner on the basis of admitted facts where the service conditions of the petitioners were not disputed. The relief of regularisation and salary in regular pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in the instant case the respondents have clearly disputed that the petitioner had worked on what he alleges and have also said that as and when an opportunity was given to the petitioner to qualify the departmental examination he failed. In this back-ground he was not granted regularisation. The employee who has failed in the departmental examination and has not proved his worth to the employer cannot claim regularisation and to that extent the claim of the petitioner that he should be granted regularisation and regular scale of pay cannot be entertained and these pleas of the petitioner are, therefore, declaimed. 9. Now comes to the question of grant of financial relief granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal while granting reinstatement has only awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 4000/- to the petitioner. No reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal in the judgment as to how the sum of Rs. 4000/- has been awarded. In the absence of any reason being given by the Tribunal this Court is at loss as to how the employee whose termination is violative of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 4,000/- in the absence of such special circumstances. Therefore, the interference is called for on that part of the award that the petitioner is only entitled a consolidated sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The matter is remanded back of the Labour Court, Jodhpur on the question of what financial relief is to be granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal will adjudicate this question within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. As regards the other reliefs, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is allowed in part.Writ Petition Allowed In Part. *******