ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed against award dated 02.05.2017 passed by Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the reference made by the appropriate Government has been answered in the manner that the petitioner workman was not entitled to any relief. 2. On dispute having arisen between the parties, the appropriate government referred the dispute by notification dated 04.09.2012 to the Labour Court as to whether the action of the employer Project Director, District Rural Development Authority, Sri Ganganagar in not regularizing the services of the workman on the post of Class-IV employee and not paying regular pay scale was valid and as to what relief she was entitled. 3. A statement of claim was filed by the workman, inter alia, claiming that she was appointed as Class-IV employee on 01.04.1984 for cleaning work etc.; initially she was paid Rs.100/- per month and in 1998 she was paid Rs.900/- per month; her services were put to an end on 02.01.1998; on a reference being made, by award dated 08.11.2001, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement along with back wages. 4. Writ petition filed against the said award was dismissed by the High Court on 05.12.2006 and the workman was still engaged in the project and has worked for 28 years and is entitled to all the benefits of a Class-IV employee. 5. A reply to the claim was filed by the employer, inter alia, indicating that in another award dated 01.09.2008 it was determined by the Labour Court that the action of the respondents in not declaring the workman as semi permanent and not granting of selection grade was justified and she was not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the present claim was not maintainable. 6. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion and rejected the claim :- 10 & nksuks i{kksa dh lk{; ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k dh fu;qfDr va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij 100@& :0 ds ekuns; ij dh xbZ FkhA mlds ckn izkFkhZ;k dh lsok ekg tuojh 1998 ls ysuk can dj nh xbZ Fkh ftlds fo:) izkFkhZ;k us Je U;k;ky; xaxkuxj esa okn la[;k ,l0,y0vkj0 23@2000 ntZ fd;k FkkA Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; 08-11-2008 dh ikyuk esa Jfedk xqMMh dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k x;k o cSd oStt dk Hkqxrku Hkh dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ;k dks etnwjh izfr dk;Z fnol ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd blh U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk vius fu.kZ; 01-09-2008 }kjk xqMMh nsoh fd;s x;s jsQjsal ds rgr dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha fn;k gSA fnuakd 01-09-2008 ds vf/kfu.kZ; esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g ekuk x;k xqMMh nsoh iRuh Jh osnizdk'k dks fu;ksftd ifj;kstuk funs'kd ftyk xzkeh.k fodkl vf/kdj.k Jh xaxkuxj }kjk fnuakd 14-03-1996 dks nks o"kZ dh lsok ds mijkar v)ZLFkk;h ?kksf"kr ugha djuk rFkk 9&18 o"kZ dh lsok;sa iw.kZ gksus ij p;fur osrueku dk ykHk ugha fn;k tkuk mfpr o oS/k gS blfy, Jfed dksbZ jfgr dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ;k fdlh Lohd`r in ds fo:) fu;qfDr ugha Fkh cfYd va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij 100@& :0 ekuns; ij mls fu;qfDr nh xbZ FkhA fdlh Lohd`r in ds ,ot esa fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k dksbZ ,slk vk/kkj ugha crk ikbZ gS fd mls fu;fer osrueku dk ykHk fn;k tk;sA vr% fuEuizdkj ls vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the claim raised by the workman, inasmuch as, the fact that the earlier claim made by the workman was rejected would have no implication on the facts of the case. It was submitted that for over 28 years the workman had served with the respondents and, therefore, was entitled for grant of the service benefits as claimed and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of finding of the Labour Court clearly indicates that earlier also the petitioner had raised a claim, which came to be decided by award dated 01.09.2008, wherein, she was held not entitled to relief of being declared semi permanent and selection grades on completion of 9-18 years of service. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not employed against a sanctioned post and was working as part time employee, on which post, she was appointed and, as such, was not entitled to any relief. The finding of the Labour Court is in consonance with the award already passed, which award has become final and in consonance with the law laid down in this regard, which award does not call for any interference. 10. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.