JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - These five writ petitions arise out of industrial disputes which involve common questions of law and facts. These petitions can conveniently be decided by a common judgment. 2. Murari Lal, respondent No. 1, was in the employment of Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukot, as Technical Assistant. The Management of the Company framed certain, charges against the respondent workman, and dismissed him from service with effect from 26th July, 1969. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman and the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, under Section 10 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). The question referred was as to whether the workmans employer had unjustifiably dismissed the workman from service and, if so, to what relief he was entitled. The Labour Court, by its award dated 15th Nov., 1971, held that the workmans dismissal from service was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement without any break in service, although he was not entitled to wages during the period he remained out of employment. The employer's challenged the award of the Labour Court by means of a Writ Petition No. 3175 of 1972, they made an application for issue of ad-interim order staying the implementation of the award of the Labour Court, but this Court rejected the stay application and refused to grant any interim relief to the employers. The writ petition, was ultimately dismissed by a. Division Bench of this Court on 20-1-1978, of which one of us was a member (K.N. Singh, J.) and the validity of the award was upheld. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition the employer's did not reinstate the respondent-workman even though their stay application had been rejected; by this Court. The respondent workman filed five different applications under Section 6H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Allahabad, for the computation of benefit of reinstatement granted to him under the Labour Court's award and for issue of a certificate to the Collector for recovery of his wages as arrears of land revenue. Under his first application, he claimed relief for the wages for the period 29-3-1972 to 31-10-1973 claiming Rs. 6,645.48 paise. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 89 of 1973 before the Labour Court, Allahabad. The Labour Court upheld the workmans claim by its award dated 27-11-1974. Under his first application, he claimed relief for the wages for the period 29-3-1972 to 31-10-1973 claiming Rs. 6,645.48 paise. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 89 of 1973 before the Labour Court, Allahabad. The Labour Court upheld the workmans claim by its award dated 27-11-1974. The workman had made four other similar applications claiming relief for recovery of his wages. These applications were decided by two separate awards dated 8-12-1977. Thus the Labour Court by its three different awards held that the respondent-workman was entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,560.48 paise as wages for the period during which he was unjustifiably kept out of employment. The employer's have challenged validity of the three awards of the Labour Court, Allahabad, by means of these 5 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In his application before the Labour Court Murari Singh workman had asserted that after the Labour Court's award was given he presented himself for joining his service at the petitioners factory on 29th March, 1972, and made a written request to allow him to join service in pursuance of the Labour Court award but the employer's did not allow him to join duties. Consequently, he was denied the benefit of reinstatement awarded to him under the Labour Court award. The petitioner company contested the application on the following three grounds:- (1) The Labour Court's award was published in the U.P. Gazettee dated 12th Feb., 1972, but the workman continued to remain absent till 29th March, 1972, consequently he ceased to have any lien on the post he was holding and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of reinstatement. On the forfeiture of his lien the workman was not entitled to reinstatement nor he could be granted any benefit. (2) Since the workmans right to reinstatement was disputed the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to computeny benefit under Section 6-H (2) of the Act. The dispute could be adjudicated by an Industrial Court only if a reference was made for that purpose. (3) Since the earlier industrial dispute arising out of reference under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) had been decided by the Labour Court at Gorakhpur, the Labour Court at Allahabad had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the application. 5. The Labour Court answered all the three questions against the employers. (3) Since the earlier industrial dispute arising out of reference under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) had been decided by the Labour Court at Gorakhpur, the Labour Court at Allahabad had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the application. 5. The Labour Court answered all the three questions against the employers. The Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction to decide incidental and ancillary matters including the question as to whether the workman had lost his lien under cl. 15 (h) of the Standing Orders. The Labour Court further recorded finding that cl. 15 (h) of the Standing Orders was not applicable and the workman had not lost lien, in his post and lie was entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court held that since the dispute between the parties had already been adjudicated by the Industrial Court and award had been declared in favour of the workman there was no necessity of any fresh adjudication on the workmans claim of reinstatement. It further held that the Labour Court at Allahabad, had jurisdiction to hear and decide the workmans application. The Labour Court recorded findings that the workman was entitled to reinstatement under the award of the Labour Court dated Nov. 15, 1971, but the employer's had unjustifiably-refused to reinstate him and they denied him the benefit of reinstatement. On these findings the Labour Court computed the workman's claim for wages with effect from 29-3-1972. 6. Sri Chand Kishore, Learned counsel for the petitioner company, urged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the workman. His contention is based on three submissions : Firstly, he urged that since the employer's had disputed the workman's claim for reinstatement, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct payment of wages to him without there being fresh, adjudication of the dispute. Secondly, the workman's claim for wages was not a benefit capable of being computed in terms of money and as such no application under Section 6-H (2) was maintainable. Thirdly, since the respondent workman had lost his lien on his failure to join his duty within time he had ceased to be employee of the petitioner company; consequently, he was not entitled to any wages. Thirdly, since the respondent workman had lost his lien on his failure to join his duty within time he had ceased to be employee of the petitioner company; consequently, he was not entitled to any wages. The first and the last contention of Sri Chand Kishore are substantially the same which are based on the employer's contention that even though the Labour Court's award was published on Feb. 12, 1972, but the workman continued to remain absent till 29th March, 1972, consequently he ceased to have any lien on the post under cl. 15 (h) of the Standing Orders. On the forfeiture of his lien, the workman ceased to have any right to reinstatement and he could not be granted any wages by the Labour Court without there being any fresh adjudication by the Industrial Court. This contention of the employer's was considered by the Labour Court in detail. It recorded a finding that Standing Order cl. 15 (h) did not apply to the facts of the case as the workman had not proceeded on leave nor he overstayed the leave. He was entitled to reinstatement under the award and for that purpose he made an application to the employer's on March 29, 1972, but they did not allow him to join. Since the workman had reported for joining his duty on March 29, 1972, and as he was prevented from resuming his duties by the employers, he was entitled to the benefit of reinstatement with effect from March 29, 1972. These findings are based on appraisal of evidence on record which do not suffer from any manifest error of law warranting interference in the present proceedings. 7. These findings are based on appraisal of evidence on record which do not suffer from any manifest error of law warranting interference in the present proceedings. 7. The relevant portion of S. 6-H as necessary for the purpose of the present controversy is as under: "6-H (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under the provisions of S. 6or 6-R or under a settlement or award, or under an award given by an adjudicator or the Stare Industrial Tribunal appointed or constituted under this Act, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government is satisfied that any money is so due it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-s. (1)." By enacting S. 6-H the legislature has provided a forum for speedy recovery of money due from an employer. Proceedings under. S. 6-H are in the nature of execution proceedings to satisfy the claim of a workman to which he may have been found entitled under an award or settlement and also to recover money in respect of any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. Under sub-S. (1) a workman is entitled to make an application to the State Government for recovery of money due to him under a settlement or award. If the State Government is satisfied that the money so claimed by the employee is due to him under a settlement or award it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue. If the State Government is satisfied that the money so claimed by the employee is due to him under a settlement or award it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue. Proceedings under sub-S. (1) are necessarily confined to money claims arising out of a settlement or award of Industrial Courts, while under sub-S. (2) a workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of computation in terms of money and for this purpose he is entitled to maintain an application before the Labour Court authorised by the State Government for the purpose of determining the amount. If the Labour Court is satisfied that the workman is entitled to same benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money it shall determine the amount which shall thereupon be recovered from the employer's as arrears of land revenue in the manner prescribed under sub-S. (1). The basic difference in the two provisions is that while under sub-S. (1) a workman's claim is maintainable if money is due under the award or settlement, e.g. if under an award the workman is entitled to receive past wages for the period during which he remained out of employment his claim would fall, under sub-s. (1). Sub-sec. (2) is however wide in scope under that provision if a workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money the Labour Court shall compute the same and determine the amount which may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The expression "any benefit" is wide enough to include house allowance, dearness allowance, bonus, gratuity or even wages. 8. The employer's contention that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under sub-s. (2) is confined to cases where the right of workman to receive benefit computable in terms of money is not disputed by the employer's cannot be accepted. If the Labour Court's jurisdiction is excluded merely because the employer's raise a dispute to the benefit claimed by the workman the entire purpose of the provisions would be frustrated. If the Labour Court's jurisdiction is excluded merely because the employer's raise a dispute to the benefit claimed by the workman the entire purpose of the provisions would be frustrated. No doubt the Labour Court is not entitled to hold an enquiry to adjudicate an industrial dispute but at the same time it has jurisdiction to determine the benefit and to compute the same in terms of money and this may require an enquiry into the existence of the right to receive the benefit. Such an enquiry is incidental to the determination of the main question assigned to the Labour Court by sub-s. (2). The Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 6-H (2) has power to determine incidental and ancillary matters like identity of workman and employer's or the extent to which the workman may be entitled to the benefit claimed by him. In Shri Ambica Mills Co. v. S.B. Bhatt, ( AIR 1961 SC 970 ) the Supreme Court while considering the question of jurisdiction of. the prescribed authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act held that the authority having jurisdiction to deal with claims arising out of deductions or delay in payment of wages inevitably has jurisdiction to consider other questions incidental to the subject-matter. 9. Section 6-H (2) is almost similar to S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of extent of jurisdiction of the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 33-C (2) of the said Act in a number of cases. The Supreme Court had almost uniformly laid down that a Labour Court while exercising power under sub-s. (2) of S. 33-C has jurisdiction to investigate and decide incidental matters which may include determination of the controversy relating to the identity of the workman and his right to receive benefit. In Central Bank of India v. P.S. Rajagopalan, ( AIR 1964 SC 743 ), the Supreme Court held that sub-s. (2) of S. 33-C refers to the workman entitled to receive from the employer any benefit specified therein, it does not mean that he must be a workman whose right to receive the benefit is not disputed by the employer. In Central Bank of India v. P.S. Rajagopalan, ( AIR 1964 SC 743 ), the Supreme Court held that sub-s. (2) of S. 33-C refers to the workman entitled to receive from the employer any benefit specified therein, it does not mean that he must be a workman whose right to receive the benefit is not disputed by the employer. The section takes within its purview the case of workmen who claim benefit to which they are entitled and which is computable in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is founded may be disputed by the employers. The claim under Section 33-C (2) postulates the determination of question for computing the benefit in terms of money and in some cases it has to precede by an enquiry into the existence of the right. Such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main question which 13 assigned to the Labour Court. 10. In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Workmen, ( AIR 1974 SC 1604 ) : (1974 Lab IC 1018) the Supreme Court again held that a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) is in the nature of execution proceeding. It may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. Such enquiry is merely incidental to determination of the question assigned to the Labour Court under sub-s. (2). It is open to the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 33-C (2) to interpret a settlement or award and to fix identity of the workman concerned. (See Central Bank of India Ltd. v. S.K. Shaw, ( AIR 1976 SC 929 ) : (1976 Lab 1C 625)). 11. These authorities make it amply clear that the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 6-H (2) of the Act has jurisdiction to determine incidental matters, and its jurisdiction is not excluded merely because the claim of the workman is disputed by the employers. In the instant case, the dispute relating to the validity of the dismissal of the workman had already been adjudicated by an Industrial Court and an award had been given in his favour conferring benefit of reinstatement on him although he had not been awarded past wages for the period during which he remained out of employment. In the instant case, the dispute relating to the validity of the dismissal of the workman had already been adjudicated by an Industrial Court and an award had been given in his favour conferring benefit of reinstatement on him although he had not been awarded past wages for the period during which he remained out of employment. His application under Section 6-H (2) was for the purpose of computing the benefit of reinstatement into terms of money. In other words he had raised a claim for the wages for the period during which he was denied the benefit of reinstatement, to which he was entitled under the award. The employer's contention that the workman lost his lien and he could not be awarded any benefit unless there was a fresh adjudication by an Industrial Court has rightly been rejected by the Labour Court. In our opinion the question whether the workman had lost his lien was incidental and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine the same. 12. The question that falls for consideration is whether the workman's claim for wages for the period during which he was denied benefit of reinstatement amounted to a benefit within the meaning of S. 6-H (2) of the Act, capable of being computed in terms of money. Sri Chand Kishore urged that a claim for wages is in the nature of a claim for money and that does not fall within the purview of sub-S. (2) of S. 6-H as it is outside the, scope of a benefit capable of being computed in terms of money. According to the learned counsel a claim for money due from an employer is entertainable under sub-S. (1) while under sub-s. (21 no claim for money is maintainable, instead it postulates a claim for a benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. A claim for unpaid wages may fall within S. 6-F (1) but no such claim is maintainable under sub-sec. (2). He placed reliance on Kays Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1935 SC 1488). In Kays Construction Co. the Supreme Court considered the scope of two sub-sections of S. 6-H and observed thus (at p. 1491) : "That there is some difference between two sub-sections is obvious enough. (2). He placed reliance on Kays Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1935 SC 1488). In Kays Construction Co. the Supreme Court considered the scope of two sub-sections of S. 6-H and observed thus (at p. 1491) : "That there is some difference between two sub-sections is obvious enough. It arises from the fact that the benefit contemplated in the second sub-section is not "money due" but some advantage or perquisite which can be reckoned in terms of money. The Divisional Bench has given apt examples of benefits which are computable in terms of money but till so computed are not "money due". For instance, loss of the benefit of free quarter is not loss of 'money due though such loss can be reckoned in terms of money by enquiry and equation. The contrast between "money due" on one hand and a "benefit" which is not money due but which becomes so after money equivalent is determined on the other, marks out the area of the operation of the two sub-sections." The above observations of the Supreme Court should be appreciated in the background of particular facts of that case. The Kays Construction Company was succeeded by Kays Construction Co. Private Ltd. The succeeding company took over the business of the erstwhile company, but it did not employ some of the workmen of the former concern which led to an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal delivered an award in favour of the workman, according to which they were restored to their old and equivalent jobs and given continuity of service with 50% of their back-wages for the period they were forcibly kept out of employment. The workman made an application under Section 6-H (1) of the Act for the recovery of the money due from the employer's under the award. The employer's contended that the workman's, claim was not maintainable under Section 6-H (1) of the Act as the Industrial Tribunal had not specified any ascertained amount of wages to be paid to the workman concerned. The employer's contended that the workman's, claim was not maintainable under Section 6-H (1) of the Act as the Industrial Tribunal had not specified any ascertained amount of wages to be paid to the workman concerned. A Division Bench of this Court repelled the contention and the Supreme Court upheld the view of this Court, The employer's contention that the workman's application was not maintainable under sub-S. (1), instead it should have been filed under sub-S. (2) was rejected by this Court and the Supreme Court on the ground that the-workmen were entitled to claim money, under the award as the Industrial Tribunal had awarded 50% of their past wages to them. The employer's further contention that the State Government could not calculate or ascertain the amount payable to each workman was repelled and it was held that while exercising jurisdiction under sub-sec. (1) the State Government and the delegated authority had jurisdiction to investigate facts and to calculate and ascertain the amount payable to a particular workman under the award. In the instant case, the respondent workman was not awarded any wages for the period during which he was kept out of employment, instead he was granted relief of reinstatement. Since the employer's had refused to allow the respondent workman to joint his duties he was denied the benefit of reinstatement. In the circumstances his application was maintainable under Section 6-H (2) of the Act. The benefit of the reinstatement was capable of being computed in terms of money and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the workman's application. 13. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the workman's application and it rightly directed the employer's to pay wages to him for the period during which the workman was denied the benefit of reinstatement to which he was entitled under the award. The impugned orders of the Labour Court do not. suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law. The petitioner is therefore pot entitled to any relief. 14. In the result the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.