ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking relief to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13/10/1995 (Annexure-P/15) passed by respondent No. 2 u/s 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for brevity 'the Act of 1947') for recovery of sum of Rs. 3,03,126/- and the respondents be restrained from recovering this amount. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society Union Ltd., duly registered under M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short the Act of 1960). Dy. Labour Commissioner (respondent No. 2) has been delegated the powers of appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act of 1947. Respondent No. 3 is the workman in whose favour the impugned order Annexure-P/15 has been passed by respondent No. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, the workman was appointed on the post of Clerk in the service of petitioner-society by an order dated 29/8/1965. His services were purely on temporary basis. The workman worked under the society till 18/7/1975 and on this date his services were terminated on account of prolonged unauthorised absence. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the petitioner-society, the workman raised an industrial disputes before respondent No. 2 and the matter was referred to the labour Court for its adjudication. Though the petitioner contested the matter before the Labour Court, however, an award was passed by the labour Court on 14/6/1985 holding the termination of the workman illegal as a result of which it was directed by the Labour Court to the petitioner-society to reinstate him with full back wages from the date of his termination till the date of joining of his duties. Copy of the award passed by the Labour Court has been placed on record as Annexure-P/1. The petitioner-society assailed the award of the Labour Court by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as M.P. No. 1844/1986 (M.P. State Co-operative Union Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors.). The Division Bench of this Court on 8/8/1986 considered the prayer of interim relief and it was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-society is ready to pay the amount payable in accordance with Section 17B of the Act of 1947. The Division Bench of this Court on 8/8/1986 considered the prayer of interim relief and it was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-society is ready to pay the amount payable in accordance with Section 17B of the Act of 1947. Apart from the payment as required to be made u/s 17B of the Act of 1947, the Division Bench of this Court further directed the petitioner-society to pay an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the workman towards back wages. The interim order dated 8/8/1986 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in above writ petition has been placed on record as Apnexure-P/2. In compliance to the said interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner-society issued an order dated 31/11/1986 thereby reinstating the workman back in service and posted him at Jagdalpur. Copy of the said order is Annexure-P/3. According to the petitioner, despite the workman was directed to be posted at Jagdalpur, he did not join his services at that place. The petitioner-society also issued a reminder Annexure-P/4 dated 27/7/1987 to him. Thereafter repeated reminders were given to the workman but he did not submit his joining. Ultimately on 18/9/1987 a notice was issued to him informing that in case he fails to submit his joining, he shall be subjected to disciplinary action. He was also informed that since he is deliberately avoiding to join at Jagdalpur and absenting himself from duty, he shall not be entitled for the wages. Copy of letter dated 18/9/1987 has been placed on record as Annexure-P/5. The workman in compliance to the said notice claimed one month's salary in order to enable him to submit his joining at Jagdalpur and it was accepted by the petitioner-society and a sum of Rs. 820/- was paid to him as advance of travelling allowance and one month's advance pay through Cheque dated 7/11/1987. This cheque was received by the workman on 19/11/1987 and the copy of receipt is Annexure-P/6. The workman ultimately submitted his joining at Jagdalpur on 20/1/1988 and he worked there upto 18/2/1988 and thereafter he absented himself from the duty without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. Since his absence was unauthorised as a result of which a notice was issued to him on 3/5/1988 directing him to resume his duty, failing which he shall be subjected to disciplinary action. Since his absence was unauthorised as a result of which a notice was issued to him on 3/5/1988 directing him to resume his duty, failing which he shall be subjected to disciplinary action. Copy of the said notice dated 3/5/1988 is Annexure-P/8. Despite this notice the workman absented himself from the duty and several reminders were sent to him by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the workman did not work for a single day after 18/2/1988. In the month of August, 1995, the workman attained the age of superannuation and, thus, from 18/2/1988 till he attained the age of superannuation, the workman remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. In the meantime, writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed on 15/4/1993. Copy of the order dated 15/4/1993 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been placed on record as Annexure-P/9. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even after dismissal of the writ petition the workman did not take any action to recover the back wages due from the petitioner-society under the award of the Labour Court dated 14/6/1985 and for the first time he filed an application before the Dy. Labour Commissioner (respondent No. 2) u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 on 19/4/1995 seeking recovery of the amount due from the petitioner-society under the award of the Labour Court. The workman claimed wages from 24/8/1975 to 31/3/1995. Copy of the application dated 19/4/1995 filed by the workman before respondent No. 2 has been placed on record as Annexure-P/10. On the basis of this application respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner-society directing thereby to show cause as to why revenue recovery certificate for recovery of the amount claimed be not issued. By filing reply by the petitioner-society, it was contended that petitioner-society is not liable to pay wages till 31/3/1995 as claimed by the workman and it was submitted that they are bound to pay back wages from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement as per the award of the Labour Court. It was also stated in the reply that in compliance to the order of the Labour Court the workman was reinstated in the service on 31/10/1986, however, he remained unauthorisedly absent from the duty and, therefore, he was not entitled for the back wages w.e.f. 31/10/1986. It was also stated in the reply that in compliance to the order of the Labour Court the workman was reinstated in the service on 31/10/1986, however, he remained unauthorisedly absent from the duty and, therefore, he was not entitled for the back wages w.e.f. 31/10/1986. The petitioner-society also claimed adjustment of the amount paid to the workman total Rs. 9,048.80, details of which has been mentioned in paras 7 and 8 of the memorandum of writ petition. The petitioner-society, thus, denied its liability to pay the amount. On 29/7/1995 the petitioner filed additional reply in the form of rejoinder and in the rejoinder it has been specifically mentioned that workman is not entitled for any wages after 31/10/1986, since he did not work thereafter. A legal objection was also raised that the application before respondent No. 2 is not maintainable as the same is barred by the prescribed period of limitation which is one year. Since the application has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation, therefore, the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The contention of Shri Kekre, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is assumed that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner against the award of the Labour Court, even then the application u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 ought to have been filed on or before 14/4/1994, since the order of the Division Bench of this Court dismissing the writ petition is dated 15/4/1993. Since the application has been filed after one year from the date of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the same was filed on 19//4/1995, therefore, it being barred by prescribed period of limitation, the Dy. Commissioner (respondent No. 2) was not having any jurisdiction to pass any order on the said application. It has also been putforth by learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cause or reason was shown before respondent No. 2 for not making the application within the prescribed period of limitation. The workman did not file any application for condonation of delay in filing the application u/s 33C(1). It has also been putforth by learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cause or reason was shown before respondent No. 2 for not making the application within the prescribed period of limitation. The workman did not file any application for condonation of delay in filing the application u/s 33C(1). Copy of the additional reply/rejoinder dated 29/7/1995 taking the said objection before respondent No. 2 has been placed on record as Annexure-P/13. Respondent No. 2 by the impugned order Annexure-P/15 allowed the application on 13/10/1995 and directed to issue revenue recovery certificate for Rs. 3,03,126.00. Hence this petition. It has been susbmitted by Shri Kekre, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the application which was filed u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 was ex-facie, barred by time and, therefore, the Dy. Labour Commissioner was not having any jurisdiction to pass any order. It has also been canvassed by him that in the application u/s 33C(1) (Annexure-P/10) no reason has been assigned for filing the application in delay. The workman also did not file any separate application making out a case for condoning the delay in filing the application as envisaged under the first proviso to Section 33C of the Act of 1947. Apart from this, an objection of inherent lack of jurisdiction has also been raised by the learned Counsel by placing reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, as well as Sagarmal v. Distt. Sahkari Kendriya Bank Ltd., Mandsaur and Anr., (1997) 9 SCC 354 , and has submitted that since the petitioner-society is a registered society under the Act of 1960, as such the service conditions of the workman are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1960. By inviting my attention to Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 it has been propounded by learned Counsel that respondent No. 2 was having inherent lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the application u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 in regard to the payment of wages related to the service of the workman whose service conditions are governed by the Act of 1960. Per contra, it has been submitted by Shri P.C. Chandak, learned Counsel for the workman, that since there is an award passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner-society which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as writ petition of the society was dismissed and since the petitioner-society has not paid the wages to the workman, therefore, rightly the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 2. Thus, on these premised submissions, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that this petition sans substance and the same be dismissed. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. The unfolded facts are that the Labour Court passed an award on 14/6/1985 holding the action of the petitioner-society terminating the services of the workman to be an illegal retrenchment and passed an order to reinstate him with full back wages from the date of his termination. The workman was terminated on 18/7/1975. The award of the Labour Court was given stamp of approval by the Division Bench of this Court, as the writ petition filed by the petitioner-society was dismissed by this Court on 15/4/1993 (Annexure-P/9). The petitioner-society did not assail the order of the Division Bench of this Court by filing SLP before the Apex Court. Thus, for all practical purposes the workman was entitled for the wages as directed by the Labour Court from the date of his termination i.e.18/7/1985 till the date of passing of the award dated 25/2/1986. Thus, the petitioner is hereby directed that in case the back wages of the workman as directed by the Labour Court upto the date of passing of its award has not been paid, the same may be paid to him. Whether the workman is entitled for the wages thereafter, there are serious disputed questions of facts. According to the workman, he is entitled for the wages and for that purpose he filed application u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 on 19/4/1995 before respondent No. 2. In reply to show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner-society submitted its reply vide Annexure-P/12 and a rejoinder Annexure-P/13 raising disputed questions of facts and also raising the point of limitation as well as inherent lack of jurisdiction. In reply to show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner-society submitted its reply vide Annexure-P/12 and a rejoinder Annexure-P/13 raising disputed questions of facts and also raising the point of limitation as well as inherent lack of jurisdiction. Since the application u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 was submitted by the workman, it should have been filed within one year from the date on which the money became due to him from the employer. In that regard first proviso to the said section is quite clear. However, a relaxation has been given in the Section in the second proviso that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of said period of one year if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had a sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. On bare perusal of the application (Annexure-P/10) filed by the workman, it is perceptible that though he has stated in the first paragraph that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-society was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15/4/1993 and the award of the Labour Court has been affirmed, but why the application was not submitted within one year, there is no whisper in the application. A separate application in that regard was also not filed by the workman and if that is the position, the view of this Court is that respondent No. 2 erred in substantial error of law by passing the impugned order (Annexure-P/15) allowing the application of the workman because the authority gets jurisdiction to pass any order only if the application is submitted before it within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer. Even if the date 15/4/1993 is taken into consideration, on which the writ petition of the petitioner-society was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, to be the starting point of limitation, then also the application was required to be filed within one year from the date of the said decision. Admittedly, the application was filed after more than two years as it was filed on 19/4/1995 and therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause being shown explaining the delay, the authority exercising jurisdiction u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, was not having jurisdiction to pass any order on the merit of the application. Admittedly, the application was filed after more than two years as it was filed on 19/4/1995 and therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause being shown explaining the delay, the authority exercising jurisdiction u/s 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, was not having jurisdiction to pass any order on the merit of the application. Thus, the impugned order Annexure-P/15 which has been passed, is illegal and is based on an application which was not maintainable, since it was barred by time. Apart from this, I am of the view that since the parties are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1960, as the petitioner society is a registered society under the Act of 1960 and respondent No. 3 is its workman, therefore, if any wages in regard to the service condition was not paid to the workman, he should have availed the remedy provided u/s 55(2) of the Act of 1960. In that regard I may profitably rely the decisions of R.C. Tiwari and Sagarmal (supra) of the Apex Court. Since there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order Annexure-P/15 dated 13/10/1995 by respondent No. 2, the same deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is allowed in part and it is hereby held that the workman is entitled to the back wages w.e.f. 18/7/1975 till the date of passing of the award by the Labour Court on 14/6/1985. However, if some additional sum has been paid to the workman in compliance to the interim order Annexure-P/2 dated 8/8/1986 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the same may not be recovered from the workman. The workman shall be free to raise the dispute, if he is so advised u/s 55(2) of the Act of 1960 before the competent forum. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.