Virendra Singh, J.:- Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.R. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd February,. 2010 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant being Writ Petition No. 4604 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 4608 of 2010 have been dismissed with certain observations. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are as follows:- The Food Corporation of India- appellant is engaged in purchase, storage, movement, distribution and sale of food grains. The handling work in its various depot including Kosikala in district Mathura are carried out with the help of contract labour. After introduction of Direct Payment System at the F.C.I. Kosikala dispute arose with regard to identification of old and genuine workers. Certain agreements were entered into between the workers' Union and Management. Directions were issued by judgment and order dated 30th November, 2006 in Special Appeal No. 874 of 1998 with Special Appeal No. 873 of 1998, Appeal Nos. 835 of 1998 and 836 of 1998 filed by the workers' union on 30th November, 2006 to the following effect:- "Thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties will appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur on 10th January 2007 and no separate notice will be issued to them by said authority. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur must pass his final order positively within a period of two months after 10th January 2007 by 10th March 2007. The parties will seek no adjournment and will cooperate in the hearing. It is made clear that Food Corporation of India will not employ any new handling and ancillary labour till the decision of controversy taken by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur, if not already employed. If during the pendency of appeal any new engagement has been made by the Food Corporation of India, the same shall depend upon the decision taken by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur and shall be subject to such decision. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these appeals stand disposed of finally." 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench decided the matter by order dated 1st May, 2009. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these appeals stand disposed of finally." 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench decided the matter by order dated 1st May, 2009. The said order was challenged by the Food Corporation of India in Writ Petition No. 27550 of 2009 and 27549 of 2009 which writ petition was also dismissed by the learned Singl Judge on 25.7.2009 against which Special Appeal was filed being Special Appeal No.1115 of 2009 which was disposed of on 9.9.2009 with the following observations:- "We, therefore, dispose of this appeal at this stage, without expressing any opinion on merit, with the direction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner that if any application for restoration is pending before him, as claimed, he shall dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within two months after hearing the learned counsel for the parties without being prejudiced with the observation s made in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, which is under challenge in this appeal." 5. In pursuance of the Division Bench order dated 9.9.2009, the Assistant Labour Commissioner passed an order on 25th November, 2009 taking the view that restoration application as alleged by the appellant was not entered into register which is maintained for entering all applications hence, the said restoration application filed by the appellant cannot be decided. The said order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition being Writ Petition Nos.4604 of 2010 and 4608 of 2010 which were also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3.2.2010 by following order:- "In view of the above there was no direction the A L C to entertain any fresh application of the petitioner in that connection. The direction was specific to decide the pending application, if any, and no other. Therefore, in my opinion no error has been committed by the A L C in passing the impugned order when no such application was found to be pending. Petition as such is devoid of merit. However, petitioner may take whatever appropriate legal measures as may be advised to it or move any further application which may be considered proper. Petition dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost." 6. Petition as such is devoid of merit. However, petitioner may take whatever appropriate legal measures as may be advised to it or move any further application which may be considered proper. Petition dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost." 6. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that earlier order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 1st May, 2009 was in fact nullity, it having been passed beyond the time as allowed by Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 30th November 2006 (Supra). He further submits that the appellants have challenged the correctness of the entries in the register maintained by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, but this question had not been gone into. 7. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has refuted the argument and has contended that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that earlier order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 1st May, 2009 is nullity cannot be allowed to be raised in this appeal since the said order was challenged in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge which were dismissed against which special appeal was filed which was also disposed of and the said submission although was pressed before the learned Single Judge but was not further pursued by the appellant and the said proceedings being over, the question is not open to be canvassed. He further contended that in fact the writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not maintainable, the said order having been passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under the orders of this Court and the said orders were not passed by virtue of any statutory power given to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 8. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the material brought on record. 9. Insofar as the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that earlier order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 1st May, 2009 is nullity because of the fact that the said order was passed beyond the time allowed by the Division Bench on 30th November, 2009, suffice to say that the question was raised by the appellant in his earlier writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 27550 of 2009 and 27549 of 2009 and was not accepted against which special appeal was filed in which the said point is not pressed and further when the appeal was disposed of without entering into the said issue no further challenge was made by the appellant to the order of the Division Bench dated 9.9.2009. The argument raised by the appellant having been rejected by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 27550 of 2009 and 27549 of 2009, the said question cannot be allowed to be reopened in this special appeal and the submission to this extent of Sri B.N. Singh deserves to be accepted. 10. Insofar as the second submission of Sri Mishra is concerned that the entries in the register was not correct, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that there was no entry of the restoration application in the register which finding has also been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be interfered in this appeal. The finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner as affirmed by the learned Single that there was no entry of the restoration application has to be accepted. We however, notice that the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on 3rd February 2010 was as follows:- "However, petitioner may take whatever appropriate legal measures as may be advised to it or move any further application which may be considered proper" 11. The liberty given by the learned Single clearly entitled the appellant to make further application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner due to the finding that the restoration application was not filed as claimed by the appellant. 12. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall make application as per the liberty given by the learned Single Judge before the Assistant Labour Commissioner within four weeks from today. 13. In view of the above, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not need any interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant may take appropriate steps as per liberty given by the learned Single Judge. 14. Subject to above observations, the appeal is dismissed.