JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Carpenter on temporary post on 2.6.1977 in Gorakhpur Region. Subsequently on 26.7.1978 he was transferred from Bird Ghat Depot, Gorakhpur Region to Dohri Ghat Depot of Azamgarh Depot. He was placed under suspension by order dated 28.7.1978 on misconduct and a charge-sheet dated 2.8.1978 was also issued to the petitioner. After enquiry the authorities reinstated the workman in service with warning and forfeiture of salary for suspension period except for suspension allowance by an order dated 16.11. 1978. 3. On 19.12.1979 a report was submitted by Sri Hardeo Ram, Chaukidar that he caught the workman along with Sri Dudh Nath Carpenter carrying 11 aluminum foils weighing 2-3 kgs. The workman was placed under suspension by an order dated 2.1.1980 and a charge-sheet dated 29.1.1980 was also served on him. He filed reply thereto on 1.2.1980. After holding an enquiry the petitioner issued show cause notice dated 21.3.1980 to the workman concerned along with an enquiry report. Thereafter the workman was removed from service by order dated 10.4.1980. In so far as Sri Dudh Ram is concerned, he was permitted to serve the department again. 4. The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be arrived at and a report was submitted to the State Government by him and following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case Nos. 145 of 1982. ÞD;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed esok yky kekZ iq= Jh ;ke nqykjs kekZ dks fnukad 10-4-1880 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok os/kkfud gSA ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k@fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\Þ 5. Written statement and rejoinder statement on behalf of respondent No. 3 as also on behalf of the petitioner Corporation were filed before the Labour Court. The Corporation also filed 17 documents before the Labour Court to prove that the order of removal had been passed in accordance with law. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court decided the following preliminary issues against the Corporation : (a) That since no demand had been made the reference itself was bad and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court decided the following preliminary issues against the Corporation : (a) That since no demand had been made the reference itself was bad and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. (b) That the order of reference was bad as the workman was removed from service by an order dated 10.4.1980 and not with effect from 10.4.1980. 6. The Labour Court by its award dated 22.10.1984 after perusing the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the charges of theft stood proved against respondent No. 3. However, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption that the case of respondent No. 3 and Sri Dudh Nath was similar in nature exercised powers under Section 6(2-A) of the Act and directed reinstatement with effect from 1.1.1981 as fresh appointment without past benefits. The petitioner-Corporation thereafter filed Writ Petition Nos. 8586 of 1985 before this Court challenging the said award dated 19.3.1985 but the award was not implemented by the Corporation. 7. During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos. 8586 of 1985 respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming Rs. 5,868/- as the amount due under the award. The aforesaid application of the workman was registered as Misc. Case No. 63 of 1985. The Labour Court decreed the claim of the workman for the aforesaid amount claimed by him. 8. Respondent No. 3 also moved an application on 5.3.1986 before the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh praying that in case he was given fresh appointment, he would not claim the benefit of seniority or any other benefit including Rs. 5,868/- as directed under the impugned award. 9. It appears that on that basis an agreement was entered into between the workman and the Management on 15.7.86/19.7.86 and the workman was given fresh appointment. He has now retired from service. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the workman had entered into an agreement with the Management and had been given fresh appointment as per award, he moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming past wages from 1.7.1985 to 1.5.1986 amounting to Rs. 8,118/-. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 140 of 1986 before the Labour Court. 11. 8,118/-. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 140 of 1986 before the Labour Court. 11. It was pointed out on behalf of the Corporation that on the basis of agreement entered into between the workman and the Management that he would not claim past benefits and wages, he had been given fresh appointment and as such he was stopped from claiming past wages. The Labour Court, however, by order dated 30.9.1987 has awarded Rs. 8118/- as claimed by the workman as past wages due to him for the aforesaid period 1.7.1985 to 1.5.1986. 12. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that another application was moved by the workman before the Labour Court on 15.12.1987 claiming that the amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue and accordingly an application for amendment of the writ petition and for amendment of the relief was filed on behalf of the Corporation in the aforesaid writ petition No. 8586 of 1985 on 3.8.1988. The application of the petitioner Corporation was rejected on the ground that the writ petition had become infructuous and the award had been complied with as the workman had been reinstated in service. In so far as the amendment application was concerned it was a separate cause of action for which a fresh writ petition may be filed, hence the Corporation wanted to challenge the same. In these backdrops this writ petition has been filed before this Court. 13. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the agreement entered into between the parties, the application under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable and the Labour Court has committed an error in decreeing the claim for Rs. 8,118/- inasmuch as respondent No. 3 was bound by the terms of the agreement and was stopped from making a claim in respect of the period for which he had agreed not to claim any past wages. 14. He submits that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were in the nature of an execution proceedings and there was no existing right of the workman to claim the past wages under Section 33-C(2) in view of the agreement entered into between the parties, hence he was not entitled to any past wages till the date of his reinstatement. 15. 15. It is lastly submitted that the terms of the agreement could only be interpreted by the Labour Court on a reference being made to it under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (Section 10 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act) and it could not arrogate to itself the functions of a Labour Court in exercise of powers under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 16. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly the award was given in favour of the workman which had directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to the workman as such he is entitled to the wages as claimed by him from the date of the award and that the Labour Court has therefore, not committed an illegality in allowing the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He states that the claim of the workman was based upon an application under Section 4-K of the Act, hence no fresh application is required under the Act for entering into the terms of the agreement. 17. On a specific query made by the Court from learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether agreement said to have been entered into between the workman and the Corporation was registered under the provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not ? he has very fairly stated that it does not appear true from the record. In so far as the agreement entered into between the workman and the Corporation outside conciliation proceedings is concerned, it must be registered under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the agreement was not registered in the prescribed manner as provided under Section 6-B(2) of the Act it does not help the case of the petitioner being not in accordance with law. 18. If things are to be done in a certain manner, it must be done in that manner. Therefore, the agreement entered into the parties outside conciliation proceedings ought to have been registered under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act. Since the employers have failed to get the agreement registered under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act, they cannot get benefit of it. 19. Therefore, the agreement entered into the parties outside conciliation proceedings ought to have been registered under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act. Since the employers have failed to get the agreement registered under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act, they cannot get benefit of it. 19. In my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly allowed the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act holding that such an agreement out-side the conciliation proceedings is not enforceable in law in State of U.P. without it being registered under the provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that the workman was reinstated in service in terms of the award and not in terms of the agreement. 20. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21. The Corporation shall pay wages to the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ————