JUDGMENT 1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and special appeal is being disposed off finally. 2. The employer/appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal against order dated 8.5.2006 passed by Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/1997, filed by the petitioner/appellant, has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case are that the workman/Respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service by the employer/appellant. He challenged his termination order, in Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration. The suit was decreed by the Court of District Judge, Ajme., vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.1986 and it was declared that the plaintiffs dismissal order is illegal, in-effective as well as null and void. So far as back wages and other benefits are concerned, it was left open by the Civil Court that the workman will be entitled to approach the competent court/authority. Thereafter, the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') before the Labour Court, Jaipur (for short 'the Labour Court') for computation of the amount of arrears of salary etc. He filed statement of benefits and prayed that sum of Rs. 1,00,874.05 is due against the employer. The application was contested by the employer/appellant contending that the workman did not join before 26.10.1987, therefore, he is not entitled for any amount and no salary is payable before that date. The submission of the workman before the Labour Court was that it was a duty of the employer to pass order of reinstatement in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, therefore, he is not at fault. The Labour Court vide its order dated 17.12.1994, recorded a finding that the dispute between the parties is only with respect of period from the date of passing of judgment and decree by the Civil Court till the date of joining, i.e. from 19.12.1986 to 26.10.1987 and consequently, directed the employer to make payment of Rs. 63,505/- to the workman. Subsequently, the order dated 17.12.1994 was modified by the Labour Court and it was directed vide order dated 23.3.1996 that a sum of Rs. 60,504/- is determined and the same will be payable in place of Rs. 63,505/-. 4. 63,505/- to the workman. Subsequently, the order dated 17.12.1994 was modified by the Labour Court and it was directed vide order dated 23.3.1996 that a sum of Rs. 60,504/- is determined and the same will be payable in place of Rs. 63,505/-. 4. Orders passed by the Labour Court were challenged by the employer/appellant before the Single Judge by way of writ petition, which has been dismissed. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since there was no declaration by any competent Court about the benefits to be awarded to the workman, therefore, the Labour Court could not have computed the amount in dispute under Section 33C(2) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the Labour Court are without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/workman supported the impugned orders passed by the Single Bench as well as the Labour Court. 7. We have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned orders passed by the Single Bench as well as the Labour Court. 8. A copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court is also available on record and from the same, it is clear that Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.12.1986 declared that dismissal order of the plaintiff-workman is illegal, ineffective as well as null and void and further that the plaintiff be deemed to be in continuous service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. So far as back wages and arrears of salary is concerned, it was left open by the Civil Court that the workman will be entitled to claim his remedy in this regard from the competent court/authority. 9. From the orders passed by the Labour Court, it is clear that no such objection, which has been taken before this Court by the appellant, was taken before the Labour Court. The only objection of employer before the Labour Court was that the workman did not join his duty before 26.10.1987, whereas submission of the workman was that in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, it was a duty of the employer to pass an order for joining of duty by the workman. The only objection of employer before the Labour Court was that the workman did not join his duty before 26.10.1987, whereas submission of the workman was that in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, it was a duty of the employer to pass an order for joining of duty by the workman. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has not computed any amount of back wages or arrears of salary, but has computed the amount from the date of passing of decree by the Civil Court till the date of joining by the workman. Since the Labour Court was of the view that both the parties were at fault, therefore, 50% salary was computed for this period. The matter relates to the year 1986, when the judgment was passed by the Civil Court. The Orders were passed by the Labour Court way back in the year 1994 and 1996. At present, we are in 2012. The amount in question is also meagre one. In these circumstances, we find that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow such submission raised by the employer at this stage, particularly when the same was not raised before the Labour Court. We find that orders passed by the Labour Court were absolutely legal and justified and learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interfering with the same. 10. We find no merit in this intra Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. *******