JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside award dated 3.10.2001 passed by learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal (for short the `learned Tribunal') in IPR No. 35/89 as also to quash and set aside the order, which is prejudicially passed to the interest of petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the present petitioner are that initially Mr. Prabhu Lal raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer through its Union namely; Bharatpur Shramik Sangh and finally reference was made to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short `the learned Tribunal') to decide as to whether the workman is entitled for fixation in the scale of vehicle driver w.e.f. 1.1.1979 in place of his fixation made in the cadre of Helper. The respondent No.1 workman was initially engaged on daily wage basis as an unskilled worker and thereafter, he was fixed in the regular pay-scale of Helper Gr.II. The respondent Workman was having driving license with him and when regular vehicle driver was not available in the office, the respondent workman was asked to ply the vehicle. The present petitioner prepared a list of such candidates who were discharging duties in such like banner of vehicle driver and in the aforesaid list the name of respondent No.1 workman appears at S.No. 16. The aforesaid list was sent for screening before the Screening Committee. The aforesaid Committee considered all such persons including the present respondent workman and prepared a panel of 6 selected persons. The Committee did not recommend the respondent workman as per the list and found him unsuitable. 3. Being aggrieved with this, the respondent workman preferred a statement of claim before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur. 4. The present petitioner filed a detailed reply to the statement of claim filed by the respondent workman before the learned Tribunal controverting the facts mentioned by the present petitioner. 5. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, passed the award in favour of respondent workman on 3.10.2001 and held that the respondent workman is entitled for fixation of the post of Driver alongwith all consequential benefits. In the impugned Award the learned Tribunal held that the respondent workman shall be entitled for payment of Rs. 500/- from the present petitioner, which had occurred in the head of expenses. 6. In the impugned Award the learned Tribunal held that the respondent workman shall be entitled for payment of Rs. 500/- from the present petitioner, which had occurred in the head of expenses. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 3.10.2001, the present petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. 7. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. State of Rajasthan, passed in SBCW P. No. 3645/2000, decided on 29.8.2002 reported in RLR 2003(1) 686 , the operative portion of which is quoted as under : "For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex.10) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed." Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs." 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record as also the order passed in case of RRVPNL v. State of Rajasthan (supra). 9. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned award dated 3.10.2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur in case No. (ITR) No. 35/89, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******