Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi passed in application filed under Section 6 H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 41 of 2002.

2. The facts relevant for decision of this case are stated, in brief, herein-below:

3. The respondent No. 1 was engaged as Conductor in the Corporation in 1989 on daily wages and thereafter his services were terminated on 31.3.1992 on several counts of misconduct. Respondent No. 1 was served with the charge-sheets dated 10.7.1990, 26.3.1990 and 13.3.1992. After conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, his services were terminated on 31.3.1992. The respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute namely, Adjudication Case No. 117 of 1991 and the Labour Court found that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice and thereafter, enquired into the evidence in support of charges of misconduct and found such evidence to be insufficient for warranting punishment of dismissal and thus, set aside the order of the dismissal dated 31.3.1992.

4. The award of the Labour Court dated 7.9.1995 has been filed as annexure 2, which clearly shows that while setting aside the termination order dated 31.3.1992, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of respondent No. 1 on the post which he held alongwith continuity in service and also directed payment of full back wages for the period respondent No. 1 had been illegally kept out of service and also payment of cost of Rs. 200/-.

5. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the award dated 7.9.1995 was complied with by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was reinstated on 15.2.1996, but on daily wages post of conductor and he was posted at Mahoba Depot The order of reinstatement also contained the order for grant of arrears of wages calculated from 1.3.1992 upto January 1996. Payment was made as per calculation of the daily wage employee, i.e. maximum period of 26 days in a month w.e.f. March, 1992 upto January, 1996. The respondent No. 1 was paid only wages as daily wage conductor. From perusal of the wages bill dated 20.6.1996, it is evident that a total sum of Rs. 41,430/- was paid after statutory deduction of EPF. On 2.9.1997 respondent No. 1 was regularized in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- and put on probation and later on confirmed as conductor.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that after his reinstatement, respondent No. 1 continued to work firstly as daily wage conductor and then as regular conductor without making any protest with regard to non-payment of arrears of back-wages nor made any claim for any amount due under the award. All of sudden, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 6 H (1) of the Act on 29.5.1992, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 2002 before Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi region Jhansi and demanded Rs. 2,42,492/- as arrears of salary and bonus for the period w.e.f. 31.3.1992 to 30.4.2002.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that it filed reply to the notice sent by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi Region Jhansi, wherein an objection was taken that the award had already been complied with and nothing remained to be paid. However, Deputy Labour Commissioner did not consider the objection regarding maintainability of the application under Section 6 H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, but relied upon the chart produced by the respondent No. 1 in support of his claim.

8. Copy of the objection filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of which shows that the petitioner had alleged therein that after the award dated 7.9.1995, respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service in February, 1996 and has been paid his salary as due to him each month alongwith arrears. If the respondent No. 1 was dis-satisfied from arrears of regular