JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 18.01.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara exercising powers under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners discontinued the respondent-workman from service on 30.09.1989. Being aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an industrial dispute and that was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bhilwara. The Labour Court, Bhilwara under its award dated 13.05.1992 answered the reference on basis of an agreement arrived between the parties. As per the award aforesaid, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with all continuity and consequential benefits. However, he was not entitled for any back wages from the date of termination to the date of award. In pursuant to the award aforesaid, the workman was reinstated in service. Subsequent thereto, on 01.01.1995 semi-permanent status was conferred to the workman. The workman then preferred an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947 before the Labour Court, Bhilwara with assertion that he was entitled to have regular pay scale and other admissible allowances from the date he completed two years of service on becoming eligible for grant of semipermanent status. The Labour Court accordingly determined the amount and issued a direction for making payment of a sum of Rs. 25,830/- to the workman against the amount due. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 3. It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Mehta, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that the respondent-workman was conferred with semipermanent status with effect from 01.01.1995, therefore, he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from 01.01.1995 only and no amount with regard to regular pay scale could have been given to him for the period prior to 01.01.1995. 4. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-workman is that in view of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B & R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) Work-charge Employees Rules, 1964, the respondents were under obligation to confer semi-permanent status to the workman on completion of two years of service, but that was not done, therefore, the Labour Court rightly determined and granted the wages relating to the post of Beldar in semi-permanent capacity. It is pointed out by Mr. It is pointed out by Mr. Ravi Bhansali, appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman, that the Labour Court in its award dated 13.05.1992 in quite unambiguous terms stated that the workman shall be entitled for the wages in accordance with law and the requirement of the law was conferment of semipermanent status to the workman. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the Labour Court erred while determining the amount and awarding the same to the respondent-workman. The provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947 could have been invoked only against the amount for which the workman is entitled. If such entitlement requires adjudication, then that cannot be claimed by availing the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947. 6. In the instant matter, whether the workman was entitled for conferment of semi-permanent status prior to 01.01.1995 was required to be adjudicated, thus, in absence of that, no amount could have been determined in relation to the regular pay scale pertaining to the post of Beldar in semipermanent capacity. As such, the order impugned dated 18.01.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara is bad. 7. The writ petition, thus, is allowed. The order dated 18.01.1999 is quashed. The workman, however, shall be at liberty to agitate his cause with regard to conferment of semipermanent status from the date of completing two years of service by way of raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act of 1947.Petition allowed. *******