Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—The petitioners before this Court have challenged the Recovery Certificate dated 19.4.2011 passed in Misc Case No. 8 of 2009 arising out Adjudication Case No. 151 of 1994 and the Citation dated 28.6.2011 issued by the Tehsil Authorities in pursuance of the said Recovery Certificate.

2. The facts relevant for the controversy are to the effect that respondent No. 1 was initially engaged on muster roll as daily wage employee at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day sometime in the year 1983. The services of respondent No. 1 were terminated on 11.5.1993 without paying him retrenchment compensation or notice pay. The respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute and reference was made under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by the State Government. The Labour Court passed an ex parte Award on 6.9.1996 against which Award the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 28988 of 1997 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others.

3. During the pendency of the Writ petition No. 28988 of 1997, an interim order was passed on 22.9.1997 directing the petitioners to reinstate the workman and consequently the respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service and continued to be paid wages as admissible to daily wage unskilled labour as notified under the Minimum Wages Act.

4. Writ Petition No. 28988 of 1997 was eventually allowed on 30.4.2007 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the employer. However it was further directed that the workman would continue to be employed and to be paid his current salary.

5. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 30.4.2007, during the pendency of the Adjudication before the Labour Court, the respondent No. 1 was paid minimum wages as notified by the Labour Commissioner on 28.2.2007 i.e. Rs. 2600/- per month alongwith dearness allowance of Rs. 298.85/- per month. On 19.2.2008, an Adjudication Case No. 151 of 1994 was again allowed by the Labour Court and the employers were directed to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and to pay him all back wages since the date of his termination i.e. since 11.5.1993.

6. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 65182 of 2008 against the Award. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming Rs. 9,18,565/- as wages w.e.f. 11.5.1993 upto November 2009 on the basis of wages as admissible to a regular Class-IV employee.

7. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 65182 of 2008 on 31.3.2010. The petitioners filed their objections before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 8.4.2010 disputing the claim of the respondent No. 1 to regular salary as admissible to Class-IV employee. In the said objections, the petitioners clearly stated that the Labour Court in its Award dated 19.2.2008 had directed for reinstatement alongwith back wages and continuity in service and since the respondent No. 1 was initially engaged as a muster roll employee on daily wages, he could only be reinstated as a muster roll employee and could not claim salary admissible to regular Class-IV employee.

8. During the pendency of the application under Section 6H(1), a Special Leave Petition No. 13942 of 2010 was also preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 65182 of 2008. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 13.9.2010.

9. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the Deputy Labour Commissioner without looking into the objections filed by the petitioners, by the impugned order dated 19.4.2011 has issued a Recovery Certificate directing for recovery of Rs. 9,18,965/- as claimed by the workman. Consequently, a recovery citation was issued by the District Magistrate on 28.6.2011.

10. Counsel