JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, leared counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Smt. Sunita Agarwal with regard to maintainability of the appeal. She submits that appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court since the order, which was challenged in the writ petition, was an order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under Section 6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), who according to her would answer the description of a Tribunal’. 3. The contention so raised is misconceived. Under Section 6-H (1) of the Act the Deputy Labour Commissioner only computes the money due to a workman in terms of an Award or Settlement etc. and thereafter certificate is issued. Section 6-H (1) of the Act presupposes a settlement or award. Under Section 61-H (1) of the Act the Deputy Labour Commissioner does not act as a Court or Tribunal so as to attract the bar under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. We are of the view that the appeal is not barred by Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. 4. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Hon’ble Single Judge dated 4th August, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 47251 of 1999. 5. Facts relevant for deciding the present special appeal are as follows : respondent No. 2, Awadhesh Kumar Misra, was employed with erstwhile Deoria Sugar Mills. His services were brought to an end under an order of the erstwhile employer dated 5th January, 1984. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 4K of the Act for adjudication and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 15 of 1985. The Labour Court by means of its award dated 16th August, 1986 held that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5th January, 1984 was illegal and directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with all consequential benefits. The Labour Court by means of its award dated 16th August, 1986 held that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5th January, 1984 was illegal and directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with all consequential benefits. However, it was provided in the award that since the workman has not been able to establish that for the period he was out of employment he was not gainfully employed, therefore, back wages for the period commencing from the date of termination till the date of the award were refused. The Labour Court specifically recorded that the workman shall be entitled for wages from the date of the award. 6. Not being satisfied with the award so made by the Labour Court, the erstwhile employer filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 12104 of 1987 wherein initially an interim stay order was granted staying the operation of the award, however, subsequently the interim order was modified by order dated 17th October, 1985 with the direction to the employer to comply with the requirements of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We may record that ultimately the writ petition has been finally dismissed in the year 2004. 7. The interim order providing for payment of wages under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with by the employer. The workman therefore made an application under Section 6-H(1) for computation and recovery of the money due to him in terms of the award. The application so made by the workman was numbered as R.D. Case No. 37 of 1998. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by means of his order dated 2nd September, 1999 computed the money in terms of the award for the period commencing from the date of enforcement of the award till the date of the application. 8. During this period, Deoria Sugar Mills was acquired by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited with effect from 24th April, 1989 in exercise of powers under U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited filed the Writ Petition No. 47251 of 1999 against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred to above. The writ petition so filed, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order dated 4th August, 2006, hence this intra Court appeal. 9. On behalf of the appellant, Dr. The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited filed the Writ Petition No. 47251 of 1999 against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred to above. The writ petition so filed, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order dated 4th August, 2006, hence this intra Court appeal. 9. On behalf of the appellant, Dr. Y.K. Srivastava vehemently contended that the proceedings as initiated under Section 6-H (1) of the Act by the workman concerned were legally not maintainable inasmuch as there was no award against the appellant, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited and, therefore, no money could have been computed and no direction for payment thereof could be enforced against the acquiring Corporation. It is further submitted that in view of Section 3 read with Sections 7 and 8 of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 the acquiring body cannot be saddled with any liability, which the earlier owner of the Sugar Factory had to incur. It is, therefore, submitted that in facts of the case the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman concerned as well as the direction for payment of wages from the date of award could not have been enforced against the appellant. 10. The contention so raised on behalf of the appellant is opposed by Smt. Sunita Agarwal and it is stated that Hon’ble Single Judge after noticing the various judgments applicable on the subject has rightly came to the conclusion that in view of Section 16 of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 the liability in respect of the employees who stood transferred to the Corporation have to be born by the acquiring body and, therefore, the appellant cannot evade the financial liability, which arises out of the award made by the Labour Court. 11. We have considered the contentions so raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 12. The issue in short for consideration before us is as to whether U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (appellant), which has acquired Deoria Sugar Mills under the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 can be saddled with the responsibility of reinstatement of the workman concerned in terms of the award of the Labour Court and for payment of wages as computed under the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (1) of the Act. For the purpose of appreciating the said issue, it is worthwhile to reproduce Section 16 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 197 : “16. Transfer of employees.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Section, every person (other than a director of a company in whom the ownership, management or control of the scheduled undertaking was vested immediately before the appointed day, or of a subsidiary company of such company, or a relative, as defined in Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), of such director or of proprietor or partner or lessee of the undertaking, who was employed exclusively in connection with the schedule undertaking immediately before the appointed day shall, on and from the day become an employee of the Corporation and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration, and upon the same terms and conditions, and with same rights and privileges as to pension gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if the undertaking had not been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, and shall continue to do so until his employment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration or other terms and conditions of services are revised or altered by the Corporation under or in pursuance of any law or in accordance with any provision which for the time being governs his service : .........................." 13. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Section, it would be apparently clear that the employees who were in actual employment of the Deoria Sugar Mills on the relevant date of acquisition, in facts of the case 24th April, 1989, by operation of law is become the employees of the appellant and the appellant is liable for all their claims towards their remuneration along with other benefits in terms of Section 16 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. We are of the considered opinion that once the Labour Court vide award dated 16th August, 1986 had held that termination of the services of respondent No. 2 was illegal and that he was entitled for reinstatement, it logically follows that the respondent No. 2 was continuing as the employee of the erstwhile Sugar Mills on the relevant date for the purposes of Section 16 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. Such an employee also stands transferred to the Corporation. It is needless to emphasise that any stay order obtained by the Sugar Mills in between would merge in the final judgment of this Court and since the writ petition has been dismissed, it is to be presumed that no interim order was ever passed in the writ petition as has been held in the case of Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1968 All 139 relevant portion whereof is quoted below : “7...... It is well settled that an interim order merges in the final order and does not exist by itself. So the result brought about by an interim order would be non est in the eyes of law if the final order grants no relief. The grant of interim relief when the petition was ultimately dismissed could not have the effect of postponing implementation of the order of compulsory retirement. It must in the circumstances take effect as if there was no interim order....” 14. The said judgment has specifically been approved by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(62) A.L.R. 769 (reference paragraph 10). 15. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that with effect from 16th August, 1986 the respondent No. 2 has to be treated to be a workman of the Sugar Mills for all practical purposes and, therefore, he become a transferred employee of the Corporation under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 with effect from 24th April, 1989. The Corporation becomes the employer of respondent No. 2 and is responsible for payment of money in terms of the award. We, therefore, hold that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has rightly computed the money in terms of the award and has also rightly directed recovery of the same from the appellant. We may record that although a fragile attempt was made to challenge the calculation made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under his order passed under Section 6-H (1) of the Act on the basis of the chart submitted by the workman concerned, however, no relevant facts nor documents could be brought on the record for disputing the correctness or otherwise of the details so furnished in the chart. The correctness of the computation cannot be permitted to be questioned on vague allegations. 16. The correctness of the computation cannot be permitted to be questioned on vague allegations. 16. In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed herein above, we find that the Hon’ble Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 17. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. ————