D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) AWARDS were passed in favour of the workman directing reinstatement. These awards are dated 3. 7. 95 and 4. 7. 95. ( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 25439 of 1995, the said awars were challenged. On 17th September, 1996 this Court passed an interim order to the following extent : "heard counsel for the parties and perused the award. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that the operation of the impugned awards dated 3. 7. 95 and 4. 7. 95 shall remain stayed only in so far as it directs payment of back wages, provided the respondent workman is reinstated pursuant to said awards within a month and is paid his current wages. " ( 3 ) ON the allegation that the workman was not being paid salary according to the awards in terms of the interim order, an application under Section 6-H (1) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act was filed. The same was registered as R. D. Case No. 22 of 1997. By an order dated 7. 2. 1998, being Annexure 12 to the writ petition, the said application was allowed and recovery proceedings were initiated. Through another order passed on the same day which is Annexure-17 to the writ petition, recovery sought for another period in R. D. Case No. 174 of 1997, was allowed and sought to be recovered. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the learned labour Court did not enter into the merits of the case and had not proceeded to compute the benefits out of the awards in terms of Section 6-H of the Act. On the other hand it cursorily pointed out that he had satisfied with the computation made by the workman himself without going into the objection of the petitioner and computing the amount itself. Mr. Srivastava secondly contends that in view of Rules 34 to 38 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules computation can be made only in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. The Labour court had not adopted such a procedure and therefore the orders suffer from illegality and material irregularity. ( 5 ) MR. Mr. Srivastava secondly contends that in view of Rules 34 to 38 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules computation can be made only in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. The Labour court had not adopted such a procedure and therefore the orders suffer from illegality and material irregularity. ( 5 ) MR. P. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that Court may not interfere with the finding of fact simply because it has not spelt out the process of computation and has accepted the computation given by the workman. The very order shows that the authority had applied its mind and then accepted the computation made by the workman. The rules of procedure may not have been followed technically. Technically should not stand in the way if there has not been any substantial injustice caused to the other side. ( 6 ) I have heard both the learned Counsel and perused the orders, the application and objection thereto. It appears that the employer had pointed out a calculation of the amount in terms of the awards as if service of the workman had never been terminated and had further contended that the amount claimed does not fit in the scales available to the workmen. On the other hand the workman had claimed at par with that of the State Government employees which is not available to the workmen. Admittedly, the workmen had made calculation of his own. Admittedly, if claim of the workman is admitted, in that event he will be getting higher pay than the person who is immediate senior to him who is getting 2020/- and the workman was being paid at the rate of 2010, whereas according to his calculation he claimed 2893. On this background the Labour court had observed that he is satisfied with the calculation made by the workman. He had also recorded that he had applied its mind to the claim made by the workman recording that he had heard both sides and had perused the papers. But he had not recorded anything about the objection raised by the employer. In fact he has not computed the amount himself which he was called upon to do. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, in Rules 34 to 4o has provided the procedure for computation. But he had not recorded anything about the objection raised by the employer. In fact he has not computed the amount himself which he was called upon to do. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, in Rules 34 to 4o has provided the procedure for computation. It has also provided for appointment of a Commissioner and also for local investigation after which the Commissioner has to submit his report. It has also spelt out the powers of the Commissioner by virtue of Rule 38 whereas Rule 39 provides for representation of the parties before the Commissioner. Thus, elaborate procedure has been laid down under the Rules. The Labour Court has been created pursuant to Industrial Disputes Act which provides for framing of the Rules for the purpose and objects of the Act. It being a creature of the statute, it has to follow the statute. Since Rules have laid down the procedure it cannot act de hors the Rules. It is not open to the Labour Court to proceed ignoring the Rules otherwise it will Invite arbitrariness in the process itself. Therefore, it was not open to the labour Court to compute the amount only on the basis of subjective satisfaction with - regard to the computation made by the workman himself without making any reference to the objection of the employer, thereby denying a right to the employer to represent itself before the commissioner as provided under Rules 34 to 39. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Then again, even without computing, the Labour Court did not refer to the objection of the employer. It has also not spelt out the reasons why he has been satisfied with the computation made by the workman. Thus, the orders suffer from infirmity which cannot be remedied. In that view of the matter the order dated 7. 2. 1998 contained in Annxure-12 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Another order dated 7. 2. 1998 passed in R. D. Case No. 174 of 1997 arising out of similar application under Section 33-C (2) in respect of different period contained in Annexure-17, is also liable to be quashed on the same ground. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the said two orders contained in Annexures 12 and 17 to this writ petition. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the said two orders contained in Annexures 12 and 17 to this writ petition. ( 8 ) THE matter shall go back on remand to the learned Court below for decision afresh in the light of observations made above following Rules 34 to 40 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is expected that fresh order would be passed by the Court below in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the Court below. In the meantime, the workman shall be paid sale admitted by the employer in his objection contained in Annexure 10, namely 1886/- per month according to scale in terms of the award subject to interim order passed in the earlier writ petition. ( 9 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( 10 ) LET certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel on payment of usual charges within seven days. .