JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - On 30 March 1961, respondent 3 (Har Prasad Pande) applied to the State Government u/s 6H (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,612.50 as bonus on the basis of the award, dated 12 November 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal III, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, in Case No. 57 of 1958. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Labour Commissioner Issued a certificate to the Collector for recovery of Rs. 3,162.50 from the petitioner-company. It is against issue of this certificate u/s 6H (1) of the Act that this writ petition is directed.

2. One of the points raised in the petition Is that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no Jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 6H(1) and to Issue the certificate. Along with the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Karuna Shankar Srivastava, Assistant Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, Is annexed, as annexure B, an order of the State Government delegating Its powers u/s 6H to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, In view of this delegation, this point does not survive.

3. The next point that was raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was no determination by the Assistant Labour Commissioner of the question whether respondent 3 was a workman to whom bonus could be paid. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to annexure A to the counter-affidavit of Sri Karuna Shankar Srivastava in which the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner are set out. The first objection reads thus:

Pande was an officer of the company and his service conditions are governed by the agreement entered Into by the parties.

4. The petitioner's case is that Pande was an officer and was not a workman during any of the years for which bonus was claimed by him. I had directed Sri H. P. Gupta, learned Junior Standing Counsel, to produce the records of the case before me. The records have been produced and It appears that the Assistant Labour Commissioner found' that Pande's job as an assistant meter engineer was mainly technical and also involved manual operation and a little supervision as well and that, In view of this, he was covered by the definition of the term "workman" as defined in Section 2 (z) of the Act. There is thus a clear finding given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that Pande was a workman. In my view, this finding is not vitiated by any manifest error of law. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has further found that, since the award in question covered only the period 1955-56,1956-57 and 1957-58, Pande was entitled to bonus only for those years and he accordingly issued a certificate for the recovery of Rs. 3,162.50 only. There Is no substance in the second contention raised by the petitioner.

5. The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Pande was not a workman on the date on which he made the application u/s 6H (1) of the Act and as such he was not entitled to make such an application. The foundation for this argument is a statement contained in the application of Pande u/s 6H (1) to the effect that he had resigned from service on 30 September 1959. The contention is that, since, on the face of the application Itself, It was apparent that respondent 3 was not a workman on the date of the application, the Assistant Labour Commissioner should have rejected the application forthwith. If the petitioner's submission that the person making the application u/s 6H (1) must toe a workman on the date of making the application were correct, there would be considerable force in its contention. Section 6H is as follows:

6H. Recovery of money due from an employer.--(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of Sections 6J to 6R under a settlement or award, or under an award given by an adjudicator or the State Industrial Tribunal appointed or constituted under this Act, before the commencement of the Uttar Prades