TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhansu Narain, the learned counsel for the workman.
(2.) THE services of the workman was terminated on 19.7.1986. Another dispute was raised with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination. The Labour Court gave an award holding that the order of termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioner preferred a writ petition which was ultimately dismissed by a judgment dated 28.2.2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed, directing payment of current wages to the workman. Against this interim order, a Special Leave petition was preferred which was rejected. It transpires that the petitioner eventually reinstated the workman and paid the current wages. During the pendency of the petition the workman retired on 30.12.2000. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2004, the workman filed an application under Section 6-1-1(1) of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for computation of its wages in terms of the award. The chart filed by the workman relates for the computation of the wages from the date when he was initially suspended till the date of his retirement on 31 st December, 2000. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, issued an order for the payment of an amount of Rs. 6,19,203/- which included Rs. 1,35,000. towards leave encashment and Rs. 4,84,203/- towards arrears of wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The learned counsel submitted that computation of wages under Section 6-H(1) of the Act can only be computed in terms of the award and consequently, the wages for pre-award period cannot be taken into consideration. The learned coun­sel for the petitioner further submitted that the post award wages also could not be determined under Section 6-H(1) of the Act and further submitted that the Leave Encashment, in any case, cannot be calculated under Section 6-H(1) of the Act and that the remedy available to the workman was to raise a reference under Section 4-K of the Act or under Section 6-H(2) of the Act. The learned 4 counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of the interim order, the workman has been paid wages, which amount has not been adjusted while cal­culating the arrears of wages.;