JUDGMENT 1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and intra Court appeal is being disposed off finally. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against order dated 15.05.2007 passed by Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2005, filed by the petitioner/appellant, has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition before Single Bench challenging award dated 20.1.2000 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). It was averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on 1.8.1994 and his services were terminated on 12.3.1995 in violation of provisions of Sections 25-G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules, 1957. 4. Respondents contested the writ petition by filing reply to the writ petition, wherein it was stated that the petitioner himself approached Respondent No. 1 to implement the terms of the award passed by the Tribunal and on his application, the requisite amount has been paid to him. He was also given an opportunity to appear before the authority for re-employment, but he did not respond to the letters issued by the respondent. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 15.5.2007. Hence, this intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since junior person was kept in employment by respondent-Bank, therefore, an order of reinstatement of the appellant ought to have been passed by the Tribunal. 7. Submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 is that the so-called junior person, namely Mohan Lal Chauhan was also discontinued. The Tribunal passed an award that the petitioner/workman will be entitled to receive the wages by way of compensation for the period during which Mohan Lal Chouhan remained in the employment of the Bank. Respondent has complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal and the appellant has accepted the amount in question, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Single Bench as well as award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The appellant was appointed as daily wager on 1.8.1994 and his services were terminated with effect from 12.3.1995. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Single Bench as well as award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The appellant was appointed as daily wager on 1.8.1994 and his services were terminated with effect from 12.3.1995. The Tribunal, while passing the award, directed to pay compensation to the appellant for the period during which a junior person namely Mohal Lal Chauhan remained in the employment of the Bank. It was also directed by the Tribunal that in case new appointment is to be made in the Bank, the case of the appellant is to be considered as per the provisions of law. The respondent in reply to writ petition specifically stated that award passed by the Tribunal has already been implemented. Required amount has already been paid and the appellant has accepted the same. The appellant was also afforded an opportunity of re-employment, but he failed to appear before the Bank. Para (b) and (c) of Preliminary Objection taken in the reply to writ petition by the respondent-Bank are reproduced as under: "(b) That Petitioner himself hos approached to the Respondent No. 1 to implement the terms of Award dated 20.1.2000 and on the basis of his application submitted before the Respondent Bank an amount of Rs. 3,600/- has been paid vide Banker's Cheque dated 15.9.2000. Petitioner himself has accepted the judgment of the Respondent No. 2 Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Thus he has no right to challenge the Award. (c) That the petitioner has no right to get reemployment, yet to make compliance of the Award dated 20.1.2000 Respondent Bank has given him the opportunity to appear before the authority. Two letters dated 11.8.2005 & 24.8.2005 were given to him but he did not responded the letters of the Respondent Bank." 10. The above facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that no rejoinder was filed to the above reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank before the Single Bench. In these circumstances, we find that award passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with law and the same has already been complied with by the respondent. The appellant has already accepted the amount. He was also afforded an opportunity fur reemployment. In these circumstances, we find that award passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with law and the same has already been complied with by the respondent. The appellant has already accepted the amount. He was also afforded an opportunity fur reemployment. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 11. The intra Court appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******