Tarun Agarwala,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manu Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.G. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 23. Proceedings were initiated under the U.P.(Industrial Peace) Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 for non - payment of the wage bill for the period August 2004 to December 2004. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after issuing notices and after hearing the employers and after considering the wage bill found that the workers had actually worked and that the wages for this period had not been paid. Since the amount of the wage bill exceeded Rs.50,000/ - per month, the recovery certificate, was issued by the impugned order dated 14.8.2007. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition wherein, an interim order was granted restraining the respondents from initiating any coercive process against the petitioner. As a result of the interim order, the amount could not be recovered till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has become a sick industry and the matter with regard to the rehabilitation of the company is pending consideration before the B.I.F.R. Further, a new management has taken over the Company and has put in its own resources to revive the Company. The learned counsel further submitted that the workers are getting wages after December 2004 and that the amount in question would also be paid to the workers, the moment the Company revives itself. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion, that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner which requires interference in a writ jurisdiction. At the present moment, there is no scheme which has been sanctioned by the B.I.F.R. nor any recovery process has been stayed under Section 22 of the said Act. Further, this Court finds that the wage bill of the workers for the period in question is admitted by the employers. In view of the aforesaid, there is no justification for the petitioners to with hold the wages for the said period. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed. However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case that has been brought on record, I direct the petitioner to pay the arrears of wages for the month of August, September and October, 2004 on or before 30.4.2009. If the said amount is paid within this period, the remaining amount for the month of November and December, 2004 shall be paid by the petitioner to its workers under the said recovery certificate on or before 30.6.2009.;