JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri Gambhir Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ajay Rajendra learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition assailing the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Labour Court (First), Ghaziabad whereby the recovery certificate has been issued to recover an amount of Rs. 6,16,628/- for the satisfaction of the award passed by the Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the entire award, the amount of compensation awarded to the workman was never quantified and there is no mention about the wages received by him during his services. In the said award, retrenchment has been held to be illegal and the petitioner has been directed to pay wages to the workman from the date of his termination till the date of his death. He has submitted that in case the said amount would have been quantified then appropriate proceedings could have been drawn under Section 6 (H) (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where the workman could have made an application to the State Government for recovery of the money due to him and the State Government after being satisfied that the said money was so due on an obligation to issued a certificate for that amount to the Collector woh in turn proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

4. He submits that in the present case, the compensation was not quantified and consequently the only other mechanism provided under the Sub-Section 2 or Sub- Section 3 of Section 6 (H) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under Sub-Section 2, the amount can be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

5. In this regard, Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957 has been placed before this Court wherein in the procedure for computing money value for a benefit has been provided, which are as follows:-

"34. Procedure for computing money value of a benefit. - (1) Where the State Government has specified a Labour Court for the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, under subsection purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, under sub-section (2) of Section 6-H, the Labour Court may, by an order in writing, appoint a Commissioner for such computation and ask the Commissioner to report to the Labour Court within such time as may be specified in the order : Provided that the Labour Court may, either on its own motion or on an application made to it by the Commissioner, grant extension of time for submission of the report by the Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner shall be paid such fees, if any, as may be specified by the Labour Court in the order appointing the Commissioner and the amount of fee so fixed shall be recoverable from such party as the Court may direct. The party concerned shall in that case deposit the amount within a specified time with the Labour Court for deposit into the nearest Treasury. The Commissioner shall not issue his report until the amount of fees is deposited with the Labour Court by the party concerned : Provided that the party concerned may, from time to time, be directed by the Labour Court for deposit of further amounts, if any : Provided further that the Labour Court may, in its discretion, extend the time for depositing the sum by the party concerned.

(3) The Labour Court may direct that the fees shall be disbursed to the Commissioner in such installments and on such dates, as it may think fit.

(4) The undisbursed balance, if any, of the sum deposited, shall be refunded to the party which deposited the sum. "

6. This Court in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31505 of 2004 (Manik Chandra Srivastava v. Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur and Others), vide order dated 05.02.2009, has held as under:-

"In my opinion, the second application filed b