JUDGMENT 1. This appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated 16th February, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1227/2000. In the writ petition out of which this Special Appeal arises, the appellant has challenged the orders dated 10th November, 1997 (Annexure- 2) and dated 2nd March, 2000 (Annexure- 3) respectively. Under the later order dated 10th November; 1997 Aanexure-2 in the writ petition the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar allowed the application filed by the respondent workman under Section 15 of the Act and the order for payment of Rs. b6,2281- had been passed in favour of the respondent workman and against the appellant. 2. Against this order, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Act aforesaid before the learned District Judge, Sikar and the same was dismissed on 2.3.2000. Against the order dated 2nd March, 2000 of the learned Distt. Judge, Sikar, the appellant filed the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. 3. The appeal is barred by 458 days. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying therein for condonation of this delay made in filing the appeal. Having carefully gone through the contents of the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has utterly failed to furnish any cause much less any sufficient cause by which it was prevented from filing the appeal within limitation. The appellant has not filed the affidavit of Mr. Azad Ahmed in support of the averments made in pare 2 of the application. In the absence of the affidavit of Mr. Azad Ahmad, Advocate, whatever, aforesaid stated, cannot be believed what to say to accept it. It appears to be a ground concocted or manufactured. 4. Leaving apart that the appellant has failed to furnish any explanation for this delay, otherwise also, having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merits in the appeal. 5. The respondent workman is a physically handicapped person and belongs to Schedule Caste. He was appointed in the service of the Social Welfare Department, in the year 1986 as a temporary part time Farash and was posted under the Distt. Children Officer, Sikar He was paid Rs. 11/- on daily wages basis. 5. The respondent workman is a physically handicapped person and belongs to Schedule Caste. He was appointed in the service of the Social Welfare Department, in the year 1986 as a temporary part time Farash and was posted under the Distt. Children Officer, Sikar He was paid Rs. 11/- on daily wages basis. His services were terminated under the order dated 6th September, 1990 on the basis of the directions issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur. The respondent workman challenged this order in the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5813/1990 and the same was decided on 28th November, 1991. The learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and the operative part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as under:- "The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition 39 succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order of termination of his service issued on 6.9.90 is declared void and it is hereby quashed. Circular dated 7.8.90 issued by the Director. Social Welfare Department is declared as an act of unfair labour practice and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's service as continuous as if order dated 6.9.90 had not been passed. The petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits on that basis. The respondents are also directed to examine the question of regularisation of the service of the petitioner within three months and pass necessary order in accordance with Rules. Parties are left to bear their own costs." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly conceded that the judgment of the learned Single Judge aforesaid has been challenged in the appeal and the same was dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the learned Single Judge attained the finality. The respondent appellant was directed to treat the respondent workman's services as continue as if the order dated 6th September, 1990 had not been passed. The respondent appellant had also been directed to give all consequential benefits to the respondent workman. When the judgment of the learned Single Judge, attained the finality, it was incumbent upon and obligatory on the part of the State of Rajasthan Welfare State and its Officers' to make compliance thereof. The respondent appellant had also been directed to give all consequential benefits to the respondent workman. When the judgment of the learned Single Judge, attained the finality, it was incumbent upon and obligatory on the part of the State of Rajasthan Welfare State and its Officers' to make compliance thereof. Instead of making compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent workman was compelled or constrained by the appellant to approach the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar for getting cc sequential benefits follow from the judgment aforesaid of the learned Single Judge. The application had been accepted by the Authority aforesaid. This order was not accepted and the appellant preferred appeal and after dismissal thereof the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed under the impugned order. It is not gain say that the appeal against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar was filed by the appellant before the learned Distt. Judge, Sikar after 9 months and 28 days. Even after dismissal of the writ petition, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had not been complied with and the appellant filed this special appeal beyond limitation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any error in the judgment of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 Sikar. It is, in fact and substance an order passed in the execution of the order of learned Single Judge. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar, in our considered opinion, had taken the matter very liberally and not awarded damages to the workman. It would have been a fit case for awarding damages. In the matter, litigation's by the appellant are wholly uncalled for unnecessary and against the public exchequer. The learned Single Judge had granted all the consequential benefits in favour of the respondent workman. Non-compliance thereof amounts to contempt of Court order but that remedy was not resorted by the respondent workman. He filed an application before the Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar for getting the benefits of the judgment and that has been decided in his favour. It is not open to the appellant to contest the application on the grounds other than the quantum. He filed an application before the Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sikar for getting the benefits of the judgment and that has been decided in his favour. It is not open to the appellant to contest the application on the grounds other than the quantum. It is stated at the costs of repetition that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error in quantum of amount found payable by the appellant in favour of the workman. 8. In the result, the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application aforesaid, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. 9. It is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs against the appellant. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5813/1990 delivered in favour of the respondent workman on 28th November, 1991. Almost 13 years have already been passed but this poor low paid employee could not get the consequential benefits granted to him by the learned Single Judge, he is litigating for almost 13 years. The litigation in 4o these days, heavily costs to the litigants and it is a fourth litigation. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent workman. The amount of cost is to be paid personally to the respondent workman by account payee cheque/demand draft or pay order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Let a copy of this as order be sent to the appellant forthwith. 10. To see whether the compliance of this order passed by this Court has been made or not, the matter be placed before the Court after three months.Appeal dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5000/-. *******