JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 22 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Rules, 1955 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, which was registered as B.S. Case No. 14 of 1992 stating inter alia that he was initially employed in the High Tension Insulator Factory as clerk-cum-typist. He also worked as Chaser in the despatch section and thereafter he was posted in the Accounts Department where he used to maintain the store ledger and then since January, 1980 he was posted in the despatch section. Subsequently, on 28.1.1981 the petitioner was put under suspension due to the alleged involvement in a criminal case. The order of suspension was followed by the charge-sheet and then he was proceeded departmentally and ultimately the order of dismissal from service was passed on 25.10.1993. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi which was registered as B.S. Case No. 9 of 1984 praying his reinstatement from dismissal of service. 3. By order dated 23.9.1996 the Presiding Officer Labour Court allowed the application and directed his reinstatement in service. Against the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 303 of 1987 (R) which was dismissed by an order dated 4.1.1991 and again against the order of the aforesaid writ application L.P.A. No. 27 of 1991 (R) was filed but the same was dismissed by order dated 6.5.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his service on his reinstatement. By office order dated 11.3.1992 the respondent No. 2 passed an order for reinstatement of the petitioner w.e.f. 5.8.1991 and further directed for payment of equivalent pay and allowance for the period from 23.9.1986 to 4.8.1991. 4. The petitioner demanded, by filing a representation amount in lieu of difference of wages during the suspension period from 1.2.1981 to 24.10.1983 and then full wages after his termination along with all other emoluments payable to him such as Wages, D.A., Increments, Promotional benefits, House rend allowance, leave salary, bonus and other admissible allowances. 4. The petitioner demanded, by filing a representation amount in lieu of difference of wages during the suspension period from 1.2.1981 to 24.10.1983 and then full wages after his termination along with all other emoluments payable to him such as Wages, D.A., Increments, Promotional benefits, House rend allowance, leave salary, bonus and other admissible allowances. He did not receive any amount in lieu of back wages as claimed by him and then he filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court which was registered as B.S. Case No. 14 of 1992. The petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court by its impugned order dated 15.2.1997 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The said order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi dated 15.2.1997, i.e., Annexure 7 which is under challenge in this writ application. 6. From perusal of the Impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, it appears that after discussing the relevant facts and materials available on records it has held as follows : "This case is not in appeal or revision or review. It is a case under Section 28(1) of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act which is in the nature of execution of order of Labour Court. In the instant case applicant had filed B.S.9 of 1984 with a prayer for reinstatement with full back wages. From Ext. 1 it appears that Labour Court clearly held that "it is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement on his post which is held before his termination and no compensation or other relief. From this it appears that the Labour Court by order dated 23.9.1986 only allowed the prayer of reinstatement of the complainant and rejected the prayer of payment of back wages. From Ext. 2 it appears that Honble High Court held in C.W.J.C. No. 303 of 1987 (R) in my opinion the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have misdirected himself in granting a relief of reinstatement only to the respondent No. 3 without awarding him any compensation whatsoever. From this it appears that Honble High Court also affirmed the order of Labour Court of reinstatement only and rejection of other relief. From this it appears that Honble High Court also affirmed the order of Labour Court of reinstatement only and rejection of other relief. There is nothing to show that complainant filed any case against the order of the Labour Court Ext. 1 or of the Honble High Court Exts. 2 and 3. Thus, it is clear that the applicant is not entitled to any claim as claimed prior to reinstatement. 7. The learned Labour Court further held that the major portion of the claim of the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Labour Court on the following grounds : Firstly, that the claim of the petitioner has not been examined properly by the Labour Court and there is no discussion at all about it. Secondly, that the Labour Court has misconstrued the judgment of this Court and the findings regarding the claim to be time barred was also not correct. 9. After close the scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, I find that the findings arrived at on the basis of the consideration of the fact is based on the materials on records and the same cannot be said to be in any way illegal and perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate his argument, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.2.1997 passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly it is dismissed. But no costs. Petition dismissed.