Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner (State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Aligarh Khand, Ganga Canal, District Aligarh) has challenged the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh-respondent No. 2, by which the claim of respondent No. 1 under Section 6-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred as “Act”) had been allowed.

3. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition on 30.9.2013, had passed the following order in favour of the petitioner :

“Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application moved under Section 6H(1) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act was not maintainable. The respondent workman was daily wager, hence the wages could not be calculated considering the salary of the regular employee, hence award is illegal and arbitrary.

Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the impugned award, the amount has already been deposited. However, the same has not been released as yet.

Issue notice to the opposite party No. 1 returnable at an early date.

In the meantime till the next date of listing 50% of the amount, if already deposited, shall be released in favour of the respondent workman and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit.”

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are, that the respondent No. 1 claimed that he was engaged on daily wage basis on the post of Sinchpal in the petitioner-department on 1.8.1998, and continued upto 31.8.1999 and his services were dispensed with on oral termination since 1.9.1999. The respondent No. 1 challenged his termination before Labour Court and the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 268 of 2005 (Old Adjudication Case No. 165 of 2000). The Labour Court vide award dated 20.8.2007 directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. It is also apparent from the record, that the said award has been assailed in the Writ Petition No. 31060 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2008. Against the said dismissal order, the State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 2281 of 2009 (Civil) which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 7.7.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was immediately reinstated in the department. Thereafter, the workman/respondent No. 1 had filed application under Section 6-H (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1945 (herein after referred as Act, 1947) before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, claiming that in pursuance to the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, he is entitled to get salary to the tune of Rs. 26,688/- from 28.11.2007 to 29.2.2008.

5. Again an application had been filed claiming salary of Rs. 63,566/-. Against the said application detailed objection/written statement had been filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 4.2.2009, the respondent No. 2 directed for payment of Rs. 63,586/- to the respondent No. 1.

6. It appears from the record that the said amount was paid to the respondent No. 1. After receiving the said amount again he had filed an application on 1.7.2009 under Section 6-H (1) read with Rule 33 of the U.P. Industrial Rules, 1957 claiming further salary of Rs. 1,44,237/- for subsequent period. Again a detailed objection has been filed by the petitioner and refuted that the respondent No. 1 was never appointed on the post of Sinchpal and he was not entitled for salary of the said post and furether the Labour Court had never directed the petitioner to reinstate him on the post of Sinchpal. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.9.2010 had directed for recovery of Rs. 1,44,237/- which was sent to the District Magistrate, Aligarh for real