Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—This appeal is barred by limitation from 405 days. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case. This appeal is before us to question correctness of the judgment dated 20.02.2013 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan and the employer of the respondent-workman challenging the award dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No.48/2006. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the appropriate government under a notification dated 27.05.2006 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court in the terms that : “Whether non-grant of semi-permanent status and consequential pay scale with effect from 01.04.1985 to workman Mr. Irshad Ali S/o Mr. Shamsher Ali, resident of Mohalla Saudagaran, Ansari Chowk, Jodhpur (represented by Mr. Vinod Purohit, Honorary Advisor to Nal Mazdoor Sangh 18/716 Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur) is justified and valid? If not, then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled?” 3. The Labour Court after examining entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that being 12.10.1982 the date of appointment of the workman, he is entitled for semi-permanent status on the post of Electrician with effect from 01.04.1985. The Labour Court while adjudicating the industrial dispute also noticed that the same benefit was extended to other similarly situated persons. Accordingly, while answering the reference, directions were given to consider case of the respondent workman for grant of semi-permanent status with effect from 01.04.1985 and further to give him all other consequential benefits. 4. Learned Single Bench after examining merits of the case arrived at the conclusion that the award does not suffer from any such wrong that may warrant interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-workman, though was working with effect from 01.10.1982, but no post was existing for grant of semi-permanent status. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. As per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964, semi-permanent status and permanent status are required to be conferred on a work-charged employee on completion of 2 and 10 years of service respectively, if he is otherwise found suitable. As per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964, semi-permanent status and permanent status are required to be conferred on a work-charged employee on completion of 2 and 10 years of service respectively, if he is otherwise found suitable. It nowhere contemplates the issue about availability of the post. As a matter of fact, the working of the persons concerned as workcharged employee on casual post indicates availability of vacancy in the workcharged cadre. 7. In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal is dismissed.