ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the employer, are directed against the orders passed by the Labour Court Under Section 6-H (1) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the act. Since, the common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were dismissed on 9th April, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petitions. ( 2 ) 17 Workmen, whose services were terminated, have raised dispute, which has been referred to the Labour Court and ultimately, the award was given by the Labour Court in favour of the workmen for reinstatement of service with continuity and 50% of back wages. This award was challenged by the petitioners-employer by means of separate writ petitions earlier to the present writ petitions. This Court dismissed that writ petitions. Thereafter, the employer took up the matter to the Apex Court by means of special leave petition. The Apex Court also did not accept the contention of the petitioners-employer and maintained the award of the Labour Court. Under the award, the respondents i. e. , 17 workmen were given 50 percent of the wages, which were admittedly not paid to the workman. They filed an application for execution of the award. During the pendency of the application for execution of the award, the employer paid wages up to June, 1996. The present writ petitions are confined only to the application with regard to the wages from 1st July, 1996 till 31st July, 1996. ( 3 ) THE second writ petition, namely. Writ Petition No. 35708 of 1996, relates to bonus for the said period. The employer have raised controversy before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, ghaziabad that the application Under Section 6-H (l) of the Act is not maintainable because 17 workmen were suspended with effect from 1st July, 1996 for misconduct. It is also stated that the wages up to month of June, 1996 have already been paid, the workmen can at the most said to be entitled only for subsistence allowance and not wages for the month of July, 1996. It is also stated that the wages up to month of June, 1996 have already been paid, the workmen can at the most said to be entitled only for subsistence allowance and not wages for the month of July, 1996. The executing Court has considered the objection raised by the employer and rejected first contention regarding maintainability of one single application on behalf of the 17 workmen. It has held that-there is no bar under the statute and there is specific provision Under Section 33 (1) (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (Central) that joint application is maintainable if all the workmen have signed the application and its Schedule. Therefore, this objection is found to be not maintainable. With regard to the other contention that the application Under Section 6-H (l)of the Act is not maintainable, the authority has recorded a finding that the workmen concerned, who are entitled for reinstatement under the award dated 6th November, 1993 within one month from the date of publication of the award with fifty percent back wages and other benefits, became entitled for the aforesaid amount and the fact that the employer have paid amount payable under the award upto the month of June, 1996. Therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners-employer to say that the application Under Section 6-H (1) of the Act is not maintainable and the contention of the petitioners-employer deserves to be dismissed. In my opinion, the authority has rightly rejected the objection of the employer. The authority has further recorded a finding that it is apparent from the material on record that the employer have deliberately not allowed these workmen to join their services and it is only after the filing of application Under Section 6-H (1) of the Act, the employer have paid wages under the award upto the month of June, 1996. Merely because, the employer have paid wages and other benefits payable under the award cannot give right to employer to suspend these employees treating them to be not in employment when in fact that they have not permitted the respondents-workmen to join their services on respective posts. Merely because, the employer have paid wages and other benefits payable under the award cannot give right to employer to suspend these employees treating them to be not in employment when in fact that they have not permitted the respondents-workmen to join their services on respective posts. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the stand taken by the employer that these respondents-workmen have been suspended and therefore, at the most they are entitled only to the subsistence allowance and not the wages as has been awarded under the award, the Labour Court has categorically recorded a finding that the employer have not produced any evidence with regard to the reinstatement of 17 workmen and it is because of the filing of an application Under section 6-H (1) of the Act, they have paid wages upto the month of June, 1996. In this view of the matter, it is undisputed that the workmen concerned were entitled for the wages and other benefits under the award and the stand taken by the workmen that they have been suspended with effect from 1st July, 1996 cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to brought to my notice any material which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the teeth of the finding recorded by the authority on the application Under Section 6-H (1) of the Act with regard to the wages for the month of July, 1996 particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case, when these workmen have already left the employment and the claim is with regard to the wages for the month of July, 1996. In this view of the matter, the contention of the employer that the workmen are not entitled for the wages under the award for the month of July, 1996 cannot be accepted and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 35708 of 1996, the facts being the same, claims being only for the payment of bonus for the disputed period. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 35708 of 1996, the facts being the same, claims being only for the payment of bonus for the disputed period. Once, the employer themselves have paid the wages upto the month of June, 1996 and since this Court has also rejected the writ petition with regard to the payment of wages for the month of July, 1996, needless to say, for the reasons and the ground stated in this judgment with regard to Writ Petition No. 41691 of 1996, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 7 ) IN the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. .