JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Management and learned Counsel for the Respondent-workman. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Management that the instant writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby the application of the Respondent's deceased-husband has been allowed by directing payment of Rs. 1,63,750.99, failing which, the Petitioners-Management would pay an interest at the rate of 8% p.a. 3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Management that the order has been passed in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 , which has given specific guidelines for passing orders u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. It is further submitted that the claim was filed after a long delay of over six years. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law on this point as in the case of The Management of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahlad, (2000) 7 SCALE 297 and admittedly no award can be given against the deceased workman, who has admittedly not worked after the death. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is bad in law and only fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-workman has appeared and filed counter affidavit in the case. It is submitted that there was no delay in making the claim u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since dismissal of the workman was not confirmed by the Labour Court and the Management delayed the joining of the workman and they filed writ application before this Hon'ble Court and the same was dismissed and thereafter they filed L.P.A. and the said L.P.A. was also dismissed then the workman went to join his services, but he was not allowed to join the same and hence in view of the judgment in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others (2002) 2 SCC 244 , the employer continued in the service. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others (2002) 2 SCC 244 , the employer continued in the service. However, learned Counsel for the workman has admitted that the concerned workman died on 18.11.2006 and before his death he had filed nomination forms for payment of his gratuity and employees provident fund to his wife, Shashi Prabha Devi the original Respondent as she was entitled to receive the same and now after her death she has been substituted by their heirs and they are also entitled to the same. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the Labour Court considering the fact that the workman was in actual service and after considering the evidences of both sides, came to a conclusive finding at para 21 that the age of retirement in the Petitioner's Company is 55 years and hence the workman had crossed the age of retirement in 1997 itself, but only because no notice was sent about his retirement the Labour Court has directed payment of 50% of wages from 1992 to May, 2004 i.e. 12 years 5 months. 7. In view of the fact that the workman had been in service, who retired on completing the age of 55 years in 1997 itself, he cannot be allowed the wages after 1997 only because no notice of retirement was served upon him. It was in the knowledge of the workman that he will retire at the age of 55 years. In that view of the matter, the impugned order directing the payment of wages + bonus at the rate of 8.33% per annum from January, 1992 to May, 2004 to the employee is modified and the workman will be entitled only to get back wages at the rate of Rs. 11,298 per annum from January, 1992 to December, 1997 i.e. 6 years which comes to Rs. 67,788/- and bonus at the rate of Rs. 8.33 per cent of Rs. 67,788/- which comes to Rs. 5647/- and leave encashment @ of Rs. 952/- p.a., which comes to Rs. 5712/-. 8. With the aforesaid' amendment the total amount which is payable to the Respondent comes to Rs, 79,147/-. The Management is directed to/Pay Rs. 79,147/- within three month from the date of this judgment to the concerned workman or his legal heirs. 9. 5647/- and leave encashment @ of Rs. 952/- p.a., which comes to Rs. 5712/-. 8. With the aforesaid' amendment the total amount which is payable to the Respondent comes to Rs, 79,147/-. The Management is directed to/Pay Rs. 79,147/- within three month from the date of this judgment to the concerned workman or his legal heirs. 9. With the aforesaid amendment in the finding of the Labour Court, this application is allowed in part.