Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Narain and Sri A.P. Srivastava for the contesting respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This petition is directed against an order dated 26.7.2005 allowing the application of the respondent-workmen under the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The facts in brief are that Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited owned a factory at Tundla and after amalgamation with the petitioners it became a Unit of the petitioners company. The petitioners floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 19th August, 2004 for the employees at its Tundla Unit in pursuance of which all the employees numbering about 255 took the benefit of the Scheme and resigned after entering into a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and they were paid all their dues for which they duly executed receipts and the Unit closed down on 31st August, 2004. After about two years, the respondent No. 3 made an application allegedly on behalf of the workmen claiming Rs. 34,99,542 as the wage bill on account of the alleged outstanding performance bonus, medical leave etc. Upon issuance of show cause the petitioner filed his reply, thereafter it filed a detailed written statement to the allegations. However, by the impugned order the application has been allowed for a sum of Rs. 7,77,642/-.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that its Unit was situate at Tundla within the district of Firozabad and as such in view of the Notifications issued by the State Government under the Act, the power under Section 3 of the Act was conferred only upon the authority situated at Firozabad but the respondent No. 2 without having any territorial jurisdiction and without considering this argument raised on behalf of the petitioners had proceeded and allowed the application and which order is void.

5. In the writ petition and in the written statement specific allegations were made that the respondent No. 3 did not have any jurisdiction and in spite of raising the issue it was not decided. When this petition was entertained a learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the aforesaid argument had invited a counter affidavit from the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 19.8.2006; which is quoted below :

“Argument is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner without deciding objection as was raised on behalf of the petitioners in respect to the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and by recording incorrect finding in respect to finality of the claim of the private respondents in respect of acceptance of the packages which was allowed to them by accepting V.R.S. Scheme, has illegally passed the impugned order by which huge amount has been directed to be paid, which on the facts cannot be said to be justified.

Submission is that the exercise by the D.L.C. can be safely said to be in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 1 S.C.C. 159 and at the same time without considering the question of lack of jurisdiction as was placed before the concerned authority, in view of the Notification dated 25.1.1999.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Respondent No. 3 is represented by Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned Advocate.

All the respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. Ten days further time is allowed to the Counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

List this case on 22.9.2006.

In view of the submission as noted above, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing pursuant to the impugned award dated 26.7.2006 petitioners will not be compelled to pay any further amount.”

6. However, no counter affidavit was filed, whereafter the following o