Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. The Petitioner is a workman and his services was terminated by the employer. The dispute with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, by an award dated 2.2.1998, held that the termination of the Petitioner was invalid and that he was liable to be reinstated and was also entitled for arrears of wages. The employer, namely, the Irrigation Department of the State Government preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by a judgment dated 17.5.2000. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 6 -H(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of the benefit in terms of award, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, towards the arrears of wages for the period July, 1990 to February, 1999. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter and, after computing the amount issued a recovery certificate dated 23.9.2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,58,049/ -, This amount was eventually paid to the Petitioner on 9.1.2004.
(2.) IT transpires that the Petitioner thereafter moved a second application under Section 6 -H(1) of the Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for computation of the arrears of wages as per the award for the period March, 1999 to December, 2003 amounting to Rs. 3,02,939/ -. This application was rejected by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by its order dated 28.6.2004. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition No. 31505 of 2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order dated 16.1.2007 was passed wherein an ad interim mandamus was issued commanding the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in terms of the award dated 2.4.1990. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he approached the employers and asked for employment which the employers refused and that the employer did not comply with the interim order as a result of which, the Petitioner filed a third application under Section 6 -H(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for payment of wages in terms of the interim order of the High Court for the period February, 2007 to January, 2008. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, issued a recovery certificate dated 25.6.2008, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 91,845/ -. It is alleged that the recovery certificate was sent to the District Magistrate, in spite of which the amount was not being recovered and consequently the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 362 of 2009, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Collector to recover the amount of Rs. 91,849/ -from the employers pursuant to the recovery certificate dated 25.6.2008. This is how the matter rests as on date. The Learned Standing counsel appearing for the employers submitted that pursuant to the award, the Petitioner joined but thereafter absented himself and did not work and consequently the Petitioner was not entitled for payment of wages. In any case, the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was without jurisdiction and that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had rightly rejected the application as not maintainable. With regard to the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 25.6.2008, it was submitted that the same is based on an interim order of this Court which the Petitioner himself did not comply and never appeared for employment.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that pursuant to the interim order of the Court, the Petitioner joined but thereafter he was not allowed to work by the employers and that is why the Petitioner moved an application again before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for the computation of the benefit in terms of the interim order of the Court.;