Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The services of the workman respondent No. 1 was dispensed with on 1.7.1978. The workman raised a dispute in the year 1991 and the matter with regard to validity and legality of his termination, was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court made an award dated 31.8.1992 holding that the workman was working on a muster roll and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and was entitled for retrenchment compensation before dispensation of his services. The Labour Court found that retrenchment compensation had not been paid, and therefore, held that the order of the termination was illegal. Having said so, the Labour Court instead of reinstating the workman, directed the employer, to pay retrenchment compensation and further directed that as and when a vacancy arises, the workman would be given a fresh appointment.

2. The employer and the workman both were aggrieved by the said award and filed separate writ petitions. The writ petition of the employer was dismissed and the writ petition of the workman was allowed by a judgment dated 11.11.2005. The Writ Court directed the employer to reinstate the workman and also awarded Rs. 35,000 as compensation for wrongful termination of his service and costs of the proceedings. The employer, being aggrieved by this judgment, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India which was eventually dismissed by a judgment dated 30.7.2007. Since the matter reached finality, the employer issued an order dated 29.12.2007 directing the workman to join his duties on the post on which he was working prior to his termination.

3. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated 11.11.05, the workman filed an application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the wages for the period 12.11.2005 to 30.6.2006 and another application was subsequently moved for the recovery of the wages for the period 1.7.2006 to 30.4.2007. It transpires that these applications were moved because the employer refused to allow the workman to join his duties pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated 11.11.2005. It further transpires that the authority issued a recovery certificate under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the wages. It has been stated at the bar that the amount was recovered and payments were made to the workman.

4. The present dispute relates to recovery of wages for the period 1.5.2007 to 30.11.2007 for which a recovery certificate dated 1.5.2008 has been issued for the recovery of the wages amounting to Rs. 92,766.88 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur Region, Kanpur which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

5. Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Mohan, the learned counsel for the workman.

6. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit reveals that the workman refused to join the duties pursuant to the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the petitioner was only permitting the workman to join as a muster roll employee and was not permitting the workman to join as regular workman of the Board.

7. In view of this categorical admission of the workman, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Since the workman refused to join his duties pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the workman was not entitled for wages for the period in question because he has not worked and for the reason that he refused to join.

8. The stand taken by the workman that he was entitled to be regularised and was entitled to join as a regular workman of the Board and was also entitled to be paid the wages of a workman is patently misconceived and cannot be accepted and, the reason is, that admittedly the workman was working on muster roll when his service was dispensed with in the year 1978. The Labour Court fo