JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. In Adjudication Case No. 223 of 1987, the Labour Court, Bareilly gave award in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 8 holding that the respondents are entitled for gazetted holidays on payment basis. There is nothing on record to show that this award was challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner shows his inability about the same. However, learned counsel appearing for the employees/Tehbazari Moharirs submits that the said award was never challenged and has attained its finality. Thereafter, an application under Section 6 (H) (1) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) was filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 8 and same was allowed, and thereupon directions were issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumoun Region under Section 6(H) (1) of the Act directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 20,947.90/- to the respondent no. 3/Collector, Nainital for realization of the amount of Rs. 20,947.90/- as arrears of land revenue in pursuance of which the Tehsildar, Haldwani issued recovery notice on 03.07.1990. The petitioner challenged the said recovery notice in Writ Petition No. 4551 of 2001 (Old No. 18478 of 1990), which was dismissed on 06.08.2008 and the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court, while deciding the writ petition, has held that the employees were being discriminated which is illegal and unjustified and the Labour Court has rightly allowed the gazetted holidays on paid basis. Thereafter, the said amount of Rs. 20,447.90/- was paid to respondent nos. 2 to 8. The respondents again moved an application under Section 6(H) (1) of the Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 27th March, 1989 and demanded the amount for the gazetted holidays from September, 1988 till their retirement. The Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed their application and held that the respondent nos. 2 to 8 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,90,002/- and directed the petitioner to make payment of the same to the respondent nos. 2 to 8 within fifteen days. Aggrieved by the said order, instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no authority to calculate the amount under Section 6(H) (1) of the Act, as the same is based on facts, and it can be decided by the competent Court under Section 6(H) (2) of the Act. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no authority to calculate the amount under Section 6(H) (1) of the Act, as the same is based on facts, and it can be decided by the competent Court under Section 6(H) (2) of the Act. He further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is based on the statement given by one employee of the petitioner, but infact, the said employee never authorized by the Nagar Palika to make such statement and in view of this fact that no such statement was given by the competent person, the Deputy Labour Commissioner erred in passing the order against the petitioner. 3. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 5 to 8 and perused the record. 4. It is the factual aspect of the matter that award passed by the Labour Court, Bareilly on 30.05.1988 was not challenged by the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent nos. 2 to 8 were entitled for gazetted holidays on paid basis, attained its finality. The petitioner merely challenged the recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar concerned and the order passed under Section 6(H) (1) of the Act in which this Court held that the Labour Court has rightly allowed the facility of gazetted holidays on paid basis. This order has also not been challenged. Thus, the findings recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by this High Court that the respondent nos. 2 to 8 are entitled for the gazetted holidays on paid basis attained its finality. Now by the order impugned the Deputy Labour Commissioner has simply allowed the claim of the respondent nos. 2 to 8 by issuing directions to the petitioner to make payment of the gazetted holidays to these respondents for the period they were not paid. I do not find any illegality in the same. The writ petition is dismissed. The respondent nos. 2 and 5 to 8 are permitted to move appropriate application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner concerned for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the petitioner in their favour. 5. No order as to costs.