JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri J.P.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain and Sri Sudhansu Narain, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The workman was appointed as a clerk in a Co-operative Society in the year 1972 and his services were terminated on 23.1.1985. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave an award on 4th August, 1992 holding that the services of the workman was wrongly terminated in gross violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Labour Court found that even though the post on which the workman was working was abolished on account of change in the staffing pattern, nonetheless, the termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of Section 6-N of the Act and accordingly, directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. 3. After ten long years, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the award. Since the Labour Court had become functus officio, the recall application was rejected by an order dated 2.2.2010. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, dated 4.8.1992, and by the order dated 2.2.2010 of the Labour Court rejecting the recall application has filed Writ Petition No. 11766 of 2010. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition the workman filed an application dated 13.5.1991 for recovery of the wages from the date of the award to April, 2011, which was allowed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under Section 6-H(1) of the Act directing recovery of Rs. 6,35,464.18. The petitioner, being aggrieved by that order, has filed the writ petition No. 660721 of 2011. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the Writ Petition No. 11766 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Merely because the recall application was rejected does not entitle the petitioner to file writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the award, which was passed in the year 1992 nor does it condone the delay in approaching the Writ Court. Merely because the recall application was rejected does not entitle the petitioner to file writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the award, which was passed in the year 1992 nor does it condone the delay in approaching the Writ Court. No plausible explanation has been filed as to why the award could not be challenged from 1992 till 2002, when the restoration application was filed. Even after the filing of the restoration application, the petitioner could have filed a writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the award. But, the petitioner chose not to do so. The Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the validity of the award at this belated stage. 6. With regard to the order of the Labour Court dated 2.2.2010, the Court finds that the petitioners were aware of the award and their application for recall of the award after 10 years was wholly misconceived. No explanation has been given as to why they approached the Labour Court belatedly. The Court does not find any error in the order of the Labour Court dated 2.2.2010. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition No. 11766 of 2010 is patently misconceived and is dismissed. 8. In so far as Writ Petition No. 66072 of 2011 is concerned, the Court finds that the workman did not stir in the matter pursuant to the award of the Labour Court given in the year 1992. There is nothing on record to indicate that the workman applied for reinstatement of his services or applied for wages in terms of the award. It is only after the rejection of the recall application that the workman moved an application on 13.5.1991 for computation of his wages from the date of the award to April 2011, i.e, post award wages. In the opinion of the Court, post award wages cannot be computed under Section 6-H(1) of the Act. 9. The provisions of Section 6-H(1) of the Act applies to a case where money is due to a workman under an award or a settlement, which has already been concluded and ascertained and where there is no dispute with regard to its calculation or computation. 10. 9. The provisions of Section 6-H(1) of the Act applies to a case where money is due to a workman under an award or a settlement, which has already been concluded and ascertained and where there is no dispute with regard to its calculation or computation. 10. In the instant case the wages have not been earned by the workman since the Court finds nothing on record to indicate that he applied for reinstatement in terms of the award. If wages are not earned, it is not a benefit which can be calculated under Section 6H(1) of the Act. 11. In the instant case, the question of employment of the workman pursuant to the award is disputed. The rates of wages are also disputed and therefore, such question cannot be adjudicated by an authority under Section 6H(1) of the Act. Such question can only be adjudicated by a Labour Court in a reference under Section 4-K of the Act or under Section 6-H(2) of the Act. Similar view was held by this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another v. Madhu Shankar Agarwal and another, 2009 (122) FLR 335, in which it was held that the disputed wages could not be computed in proceedings under Section 6-H(1) of the Act. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, the recovery order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 12.10.2011, is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained and is quashed. 13. Writ petition No. 66072 of 2011 is allowed. ——————