[2025:RJ-JP:32766] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7622/2011 Smt. Kamla Sharma W/o Sh. Gopal Sharma, R/o Jamuna Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge, Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, 6th Floor, Mini Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through its General Manager. Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality, validity and propriety of order dated 24.02.2005 passed by the Labour Court Ist, Jaipur, whereby an application under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one award dated 08.05.1985 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the reference was answered in favour of the petitioner and directions were given that the petitioner was entitled to salary of storekeeper w.e.f., 25.02.1981 till such time she worked as storekeeper and she shall also be paid the arrears. [2025:RJ-JP:32766] (2 of 3) [CW-7622/2011] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid award was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.556/1986 which was dismissed on 12.05.1987. After decision of Division Bench, one order dated 06.10.1987 was issued by the respondent-Corporation for making compliance of award in which the petitioner was directed to be paid salary of storekeeper from 25.02.1981 to 27.01.1987. However, when such benefits were not given in accordance with aforesaid order dated 06.10.1987, the petitioner approached the learned Court below with an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 for computation of the due amount and for directing the respondent to release the same. 4. However, the application has been dismissed by the Labour Court without properly appreciating the facts of the case, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while defending the order dated 24.02.2005 submitted that firstly the writ petition filed by the petitioner is suffering from the vice of delay and latches as the order dated 24.02.2005 have been challenged by the petitioner after lapse of around six years in the year 2011, therefore, no interference is called for only on the said ground. It was further submitted that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur which was sought to be implemented by way of filing application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 was unambiguous and explicitly clear where the petitioner was allowed the salary of storekeeper only uptil she worked as storekeeper. [2025:RJ-JP:32766] (3 of 3) [CW-7622/2011] 6. Learned counsel for the respondents indicates that in that impugned order the Labour Court has recorded a factual finding that since 10.04.1985, the petitioner agreed to work on the post of helper and accordingly, since 10.04.1995, she was not entitled for salary of storekeeper and was simply entitled for benefits payable to helper which have already been granted to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and examined the record. 8. Application under Section 33-C (2) was filed by the petitioner for seeking implementation of the award dated 08.05.1985, where the benefits of salary of storekeeper was awarded to the petitioner only till the date she worked as a storekeeper and as per factual finding arrived at by the learned Court below in impugned order, the petitioner since 10.04.1985 has worked on lower post of helper, therefore, the learned Court below has committed no mistake in passing the impugned order and the benefits of the post of storekeeper cannot be allowed to the petitioner. In addition, this Court finds that the writ petition, since filed after expiry of six years from the date of impugned order, cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and latches. 9. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/48