TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent workman.
(2.) THIS group of petitions is being decided together since the issue involved in the same. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 16095 of 1999 is being taken into consideration. The services of the workman was terminated with effect from 1 st January, 1979. An industrial dispute was raised on 27th July, 1987 with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination dated 1st February, 1979. The labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, gave an award dated 20th December, 1995 directing reinstatement of the workman and also awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 8,000/- towards back wages. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, in which, no interim order was passed and, accordingly, the award became enforcible. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on 27th May, 2005, against which, a special leave petition was filed, which was also dismissed on 12th December, 2006, by the Supreme Court. The said award consequently, became final inter se between the parties. During the pendency of the writ before the High Court, the workman moved an application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for computation of wages for the period January, 1996 to 31st October, 1998 claiming wages of a regular workman in terms of the award. The petitioners filed their objections stating therein that the workman was working on muster roll on daily rated basis, and therefore, under the award he was liable to be reinstated on muster roll and was liable to be paid the wages of a muster roll provided he joined in terms of the award. Inspite of this objection, the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order dated 31.12.1998 for the recovery of the wages as per the award for the period January, 1996 to 31st October, 1998. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the said order has filed the present writ petition, in which, an interim order dated 21st April, 1999 was passed directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount and permitting the workman to withdraw half of the amount. It has come on record that the workman has withdrawn half of the amount.
(3.) DURING the pendency of this petition, the workman moved another application under Section 6-H(1) of the Act for the recovery of the wages for the period 1st January,1999 to 31st December, 2001 alleging that the employers are not allowing the workman to join the duties in terms of the award and that he was liable to be paid the wages of a permanent workman, bonus and other allowances as paid to regular workers of the employers. The petitioner filed their objections alleging that the workman was not interested in joining in terms of the award and was only interested in getting the arrears of wages without putting in actual work. The employers disputed that they had refused to allow the workman to join the duty.;