- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri B. N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. The services of the petitioner was terminated by an order dated 19-10-1968. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave an award dated 30-6-1972 directing reinstatement with back wages. The employer file a writ petition which was eventually dismissed by a judgment dated 30-1-1978. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner moved two applications under Section 6-H (1) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, for the recovery of wages in terms of the award. By the first application, wages amounting to Rs. 12,378. 39 was sought to be recovered for the period 1-1-1972 to 30-1-1978 and by the second application, an amount of Rs. 6665. 33 was sought to be recovered from 1-2-1978 to 30-4-1980. The Additional Labour Commissioner after considering the matter issued two recovery certificates dated 15-12-1980 for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the employers. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid orders, they filed an application for the recall of the said order. The Additional Labour Commissioner after considering the matter and, after hearing the parties, recalled its order by an order dated 29-5-1984. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Commissioner committed a manifest error in recalling its earlier order, inasmuch as, the amount sought to be recovered was pursuant to the award of the Labour Court which could be recovered under Section 6-H (1) of the Act. Further, the contention of the employers that the petitioner was gainfully employed for the period 1-1- 1972 to 30-4-1980 could not be considered or adjudicated in proceedings under Section 6-H (1) and could only be adjudicated under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Additional Commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to recall or review its own order since no such power had been provided under the Act. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , AIR 1965 SC 1488, Abhinash Chandra Gautam (since deceased) through its L. Rs. v. Union Territory of Tripura & Anr. , 1983 LIC 1738 and Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. v. Their Workmen & Ors. , 1977 (34) FLR 235. In my opinion, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and bereft of merit. Further, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner has no application to the present facts and the circumstances of the case.
(3.) SECTION 6-H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is quoted herein under for ready reference : "6-H. Recovery of money due from an employer.- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of SECTIONs 6-J to 6-R or under a settlement or award, or under an award given by an adjudicator or the State Industrial Tribunal appointed or constituted under this Act, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1 ). (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner in the prescribed manner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. " The Supreme Court in Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) interpreted the provisions of Sections 6- H (1) and 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and held - "it is contended before us that the judgment of the Division Bench is erroneous in the interpretation of Section 6-H (1) and (2 ). The question thus is how are the two sub-sections to be read ? This section is analogous to Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. It is significant that in all the three statutes the cognate section is divided into two parts and the first part deals with recovery of `money due' to a workman under an award and the second deals with a `benefit' computable in terms of money. Under the first sub-section the State Government (or its delegate), if satisfied that any money is due, is enabled to issue a certificate to the Collector who then proceeds to recover the amount as an arrears of land revenue. The second part then speaks of a benefit computable in terms of money which benefit after it is so computed by a Tribunal is again recoverable in the same way as money due under the first part. This scheme runs through Section 6-H, sub-sections (1) and (2 ). ";