JUDGMENT (D.P. SINGH, J.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and Sri Satish Chaturvedi for the respondent. This petition is directed against an order dated February 26, 2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner in proceedings tinder Section 33-C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioner when his services were dispensed with on May 1, 1986 and treating it as an industrial dispute, it was referred under Section 4-K of the D.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 58/1987 and an award was rendered therein on June 17, 1992 granting reinstatement and back wages from the date of reference i.e. November 9, 1987. This award was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in writ petition No. 15699/1994 and this Court vide its detailed and reasoned judgment dated July 5, 2004 dismissed the petition. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application which was also dismissed by a reasoned order dated April 17, 2007. The employee was not being paid his back wages and other benefits arising out of the award and thus he made an application under Section 33-C-2 where the petitioner filed his objection claiming that back wages cannot be given, as he was gainfully employed but the said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the workman was gainfully employed and, therefore, he was not entitled to wages especially in view of the observation made by this Court in the review order dated April 17, 2007 and respondent No. 1 has erroneously rejected the objections. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to consider the power of respondent No. 1 exercisable under Section 33-C-2. For ready reference, Section 33-C-2 is quoted herein. "33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer-(1) . (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate. Government (within a period not exceeding three months). (Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.)" 5. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that whenever an employee is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefits which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and it is being denied, in these circumstances he can approach the Labour Court under it. However, such a benefit necessarily has to be a pre-existing one or one which arises from a pre-existing right. Its power cannot be exercised to deliberate upon what is fair and just to be given to the employee. By the very nature of the power which is vested in respondent No. 1 under the said provision, it cannot go behind the award especially in the present fact where it has been upheld by this Court. If such powers were to be ascribed to it, result would not only be catastrophic to the hierarchy of Courts, but the litigation would also become endless. 6. In this background, let us examine the facts. It is pleaded that a ground was taken before the Labour Court in the adjudication case in paragraph No.9 of the written statement of the employer that the employee was gainfully employed. Yet the award was passed granting back wages. It was also pleaded in the writ petition challenging the award before this Court that the employee was gainfully employed and to prove it at least two supplementary affidavits were filed and on that basis it was urged that he was not entitled to back wages. Considering even the aforesaid issue, this Court dismissed the writ petition on July 5, 2004 in the following words: "Tested on these principle, here in the present case it is found reference has been accepted and workman has been found entitled for reinstatement with benefit of back wages from date of reference. High Court has got authority to interfere with the award in the event of there being perversity in the award or being erroneous or the same being not in accordance with law. High Court has got authority to interfere with the award in the event of there being perversity in the award or being erroneous or the same being not in accordance with law. No such infirmity has been pointed out and question of payment of back wages has to be dealt with in the facts and circumstances of each case. Here in the present case, at no point of time, any evidence was led before the Industrial Tribunal, which could have prompted the Industrial Tribunal to have deviated from exercising its discretion in favour of the petitioner. Petitioners themselves are responsible for such a situation. Conscious decision has been taken by Industrial Tribunal, as back wages have been awarded from the date of reference i.e. November 9, 1987 and not from the date of termination i.e. May 1, 1,986. Net effect of the same is that while passing the award Labour Court has committed no error, as such no interference is required by this Court. Consequently present writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed." 7. Thereafter, a review application was also moved in October, 2004 where, apart from others, the following two grounds were taken. "B. Because the Honble Court while awarding back wages to the respondent No. 2 has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.2 was in employment during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal as well as before this Honble Court. C. Because the Honble Court has recorded 3 an incorrect finding that the back wages was rightly awarded by the Industrial Tribunal to the respondent No.2." 8. But the review application was3 dismissed by a reasoned order on April 17, 2007 in the following words: "At last, it has been contended that accepting that judgment is correct, the workman cannot get the wages for the period when he was gainfully employed. Once award has been upheld by this Court, then in exercise of review jurisdiction, the question of gainful employment, from the date of reference till the date of award cannot be looked into. Question of gainful employment, is to be considered, while deciding the reference. After award has been passed, then whether incumbent is gainfully employed somewhere else or not or has stayed away from duty, same would be subject matter of another reference before Industrial Court, and said question can be decided only after taking evidence. Question of gainful employment, is to be considered, while deciding the reference. After award has been passed, then whether incumbent is gainfully employed somewhere else or not or has stayed away from duty, same would be subject matter of another reference before Industrial Court, and said question can be decided only after taking evidence. Entire documentary evidence, which has been filed by petitioner, qua gainful employment, before this Court, are after passing of award. When reference is made, all incidental questions, qua the nature of relief to be accorded is to be adverted to, and in reference, plea of gainful employment has to be considered, which will have bearing on the grant of other reliefs in respect of wages etc. See S.B.I, v. Ram Chandra Dubey (2001) 1 SCC 73 : 2000-II-LLJ-1660 and State of UP. v. Brijpal Singh AIR SCW 2006 page (sic) paragraph 12. Consequently, review application is dismissed. No order as to cost." 9. It is apparent from the above that the question of back wages has thrice been considered and decided against the petitioner. 10 Once by the Labour Court and twice by this Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have approached the Apex Court, but once this Court has held that the entire documentary evidence filed by the petitioner with regard to is gainful employment as after the passing of the award, nothing remains to be decided either by this Court or the respondent No.1. The observation made in the review order would not entitle the respondent No.1, while exercising power under Section 33-C-2, to re-open the matter. . For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.