PER D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 4th July, 1991 passed under section 6 -H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) THE respondent workman was employed as a casual employee in a hospital run by the petitioner which is a Government of India undertaking. When his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 16.4.1984, the matter went to the Conciliation Officer on the point of conciliation and upon a failure report the State Government referred the dispute under section 4 -K as Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1985 which was decided by the Tribunal on 27.2.1986 by which the workman was reinstated with full back - wages and other benefits. The petitioner challenged the said award by way of writ petition which was also dismissed on 16th July, 1986. Thereafter, the workman was being treated as casual workman and was not being made permanent on his original job, though he was in continuous service from 1979. Against this unfair labour practice the workman again approached the State Government which referred the matter under section 4 -K which was registered by the Tribunal as Adjudication Case No. 117 of 1988. The reference was to the following effect: 1. "KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK VEERBHADRA PUTRA BRIJBHAN PATEL DRESSER CUM COMPOUNDER KO RS. 650 -980 KA VETANMAN DIYA JANA CHAHIYE? YADI HAN, TO KIS VIDHI SE EWAM KIS ANYA VIVRAN SAHIT? 2. KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK VEERBHADRA PATEL PUTRA SHRI BRIJBHAN PATEL DRESSER ,CUM COMPOUNDER KO ASTHAI KIYA JANA UCHIT/TATHA VAIDHANIK HAI? TO SAMBHANDIT SHRAMIK KIS LABH/CHHATIPURTI (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI, KIS TITHI SE EVAM ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT -
(3.) AFTER the statement were filed on behalf of the respective parties and evidence was led, the Labour Court vide an award dated 9.10.1990 directed the petitioner to regularize the workman w.e.f. 2.2.1984 on the post of Dresser -cum -Compounder together with wages w.e.f. 2.2.1984. This award was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court through a writ petition which was dismissed by an order dated 11.7.1991. Not content with the order of the High Court the petitioner approached the Apex Court through Civil Appeal No. 3520 of 1992 wherein specific ground with regard as to which was the appropriate government in the case of the petitioner was raised. The Supreme Court vide order dated 12th November, 1998 held that though the appropriate Act in the case of the petitioner was the Central Act but it upheld the award that the decision was not applicable in the case at hand. For ready reference, the order of the Supreme Court dated 12th November, 1998 is quoted below: "We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties. In our view, in the light of the judgment of a 3 -Judge Bench of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and others v. United Labour Union and others 1997 I CLR 292 S.C., the question of law to be considered in this appeal as earlier directed by this Court by order dated 3rd September, 1992 has to be answered in favour of the appellant by holding that the appropriate Government in the present case for making reference of the dispute for adjudication to the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act was the Central Government. However, the ultimate order passed by the Tribunal needs no modification in view of the fact that pursuant to the aforesaid order of 3rd September, 1992, the appellant was directed to comply with the. impugned judgment of the High Court in toto. Consequently, the judgment has operated for all these years and looking to the fact that the respondent -workman 's is a solitary case of Dresser -cum - Compounder, we do not think it fit under Article 138 to interfere with the award on merits. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as aforesaid. No costs." Since the petitioners did not comply with the spirit of the award of the Labour Court and the benefits accrued thereunder were not being paid, the workman made an application under section 6 -H (1) for recovery of dues in pursuance of the award dated 9.10.1990, copy of the application is annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner filed their objection and contended that the application was not maintainable under section 6 -H (1). The petitioner also denied that any amount was due. The authority after considering the rival contentions passed the impugned order dated 4.7.1991 issuing recovery of Rs. 1,96,311.45 P.;