JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge In the present petition, order dated 28.10.2013 passed by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in an Application No. 4 of 2011, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Industrial Disputes Act) has been assailed by the petitioners. 2. The learned Presiding Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent directing the petitioners to pay wages to the applicant for a period w.e.f. 26.07.2005 till his re-engagement, as per government rates applicable from time to time during the said period by deducting Rs. 6,000/- which had already been paid to the respondent by the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had been engaged by the petitioners in the year 2002 as Trainer, Electrician and House Wiring on contract basis, as per terms and conditions of Community Development Scheme, which was a non-budgeted and temporary Scheme funded by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government of India, on year to year basis with objective to develop appropriate technology and disseminating the knowledge in the Rural Areas and also to develop skill based man power to meet the need of the Society. 4. On discontinuation of the respondent w.e.f. 1.01.2004, the respondent had approached the Labour Court-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla, and on failure in conciliation the dispute was referred to the Labour-Court, Shimla, vide Reference No. 47 of 2005. 5. The Labour Court, vide award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P2) Shimla has held that termination of the respondent was not proper and had directed to reinstate him forthwith with seniority and continuity in service without back wages and compensation, as the respondent had forgone back wages himself. 6. The petitioners had neither assailed the aforesaid award passed by Labour Court nor re-engaged the respondent. 7. It is claimed that in pursuant to and in compliance of the award dated 29.06.2005, (Annexure P2), the respondent had approached the petitioners in the month of July, 2005, submitting his joining. It has further come on record that on account of non-availability of trainees due to apple season, the training programme could not be launched. 7. It is claimed that in pursuant to and in compliance of the award dated 29.06.2005, (Annexure P2), the respondent had approached the petitioners in the month of July, 2005, submitting his joining. It has further come on record that on account of non-availability of trainees due to apple season, the training programme could not be launched. Later on, in the month of February, 2006, the petitioners vide order dated 20.02.2006 had directed the respondent to report to the Chairman, CDC, Rohru, immediately and seek appointment as Instructor for the Chopal, Extension Centre by completing all codal formalities, with rider that, in case, the response from the respondent was not received up to 22.02.2006, the chance may be given to some other suitable candidate. The said order had been sent to the respondent on his address i.e. Village Masli, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, through registered post on 21.02.2006. 8. The respondent had submitted application on 23.02.2006 addressed to the Chairman CDC, Government Polytechnic College, Rohru, Shimla, stating that he had already submitted his joining in the month of July, 2005 and, therefore, requested to assign him duties and also to make payment of wages from the date of award till date in terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Shimla. 9. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had ever responded to the said communication dated 23.02.2006 submitted by the respondent. However, it is claimed by the petitioners that respondent had failed to report himself for accepting the order dated 20.02.2006. In the documents placed on record by the petitioners alongwith petition there is an application submitted by the respondent for joining as Instructor at Government Polytechnic College, Rohru alongwith postal receipt dated 27th July, 2005. 10. The petitioners have also placed on record recovery certificate issued by Labour Commissioner, H.P. under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 certifying that the respondent had been entitled for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- as land revenue from the petitioner No. 1, in Reference No. 47 of 2006. In compliance of recovery certificate, the petitioners had also paid Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent which is evident from office note placed on record by the petitioners alongwith petition. 11. 6,000/- as land revenue from the petitioner No. 1, in Reference No. 47 of 2006. In compliance of recovery certificate, the petitioners had also paid Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent which is evident from office note placed on record by the petitioners alongwith petition. 11. It transpires from record that the respondent was not engaged in compliance of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P2) and the respondent was constrained to file an application dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P7) under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act seeking direction to the petitioners to pay wages of the respondent from the date of award till date of his re-engagement alongwith interest. The respondents and the petitioners had led evidence by way of affidavit asserting their respective contentions. After considering the documents and evidence on record, the Labour Court had passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 in Application No. 4 of 2011. 12. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the ground that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable directly to the Labour Court and the same was time barred and the respondent had not placed any material on record to prove that he was not served office order dated 20.02.2006 issued by the petitioners well in time. It has been stated by the petitioners in the petition that the Community Development Scheme stood closed on 31st March, 2007, and therefore, the application filed by the respondent had become infructuous. It has been stated that the respondent voluntarily abandoned the job since February, 2006 and therefore, the claim of the respondent was misconceived and was suffering from delay and laches as the respondent had failed to respond to the offer of job extended by the petitioners in February, 2006. 13. The respondent has controverted the claim of the petitioners stating that award dated 29.06.2005 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla, in Reference No. 47 of 2005 had attained finality, as no appeal had been preferred against the said award and the application filed under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was not time barred as there is no limitation period provided for preferring the said application under Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been stated on behalf of respondent that the postal receipt dated 21.02.2006 placed on record by the petitioners is itself sufficient to prove that the office order dated 20.02.2006 offering the job to the respondent had not been received by the respondent before last date i.e. 22.02.2006 mentioned in the said order for accepting the offer. It has also further been submitted that the respondent had immediately responded to the said order after receipt of the same on 23rd February, 2006, which shows the bonafide of the respondent. The respondent had also supported the impugned order dated 28.10.2013. It has also been stated in the reply that various persons recruited by the petitioners under the same scheme were not removed and on completion of 10 years, the said persons had sought regularization with the department by preferring CWP No. 7185 of 2010 before this High Court and in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court to consider this scheme vide judgment dated 19.11.2010, the petitioners have regularized those persons. The copy of judgment passed in CWP No. 7185 of 2010 has been placed on record as (Annexure RA) with the reply to the petition. 14. The petitioners have not preferred to file the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. However, during the course of hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General was asked for instructions regarding action taken after passing of judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed in CWP No. 7185 of 2010 (Annexure RA) relied upon by the respondent in his reply. The learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the instructions dated 27.04.2016 issued by the Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, with respect to the status of the petitioner in CWP No. 7185 of 2010. In these instructions, it has been stated that the Government of H.P. through Secretary, Technical Education, vide letter dated 5.08.2013, had conveyed the approval of appointment of the petitioner alongwith seven other similarly situated incumbents against vacant posts in the department and in compliance to the said approval the Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, had offered appointment to the petitioners in CWP No. 7185 of 2010, alongwith seven other similarly situated incumbents vide office letter No. 6th August, 2013. 15. 15. Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides mechanism for recovery of money by a workman due from an employer. As per sub-section (1) a workman, his assignee or heirs, as the case may be, have right to make an application to the appropriate government for recovery of money due to workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and on appropriate government, after satisfaction that money is due, shall issue a certificate of that amount to the Collector, who will recover the same as an arrear of land revenue. Proviso of this sub-section prescribes time limit of one year from the date of which the money became due to the workman from the employer for filing an application under this sub-section. An appropriate government can also entertained application after expiry of one year for sufficient cause to its satisfaction. 16. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 (C) deals that situation when workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit from the employer capable of being computed in terms of money and also when any dispute with regard to amount of money due or to the amount at which such benefit should be computed has arisen. Such an issue is to be decided by the Labour Court within a period not exceeding three months, however, the Labour Court can extend the period for reasons to be recorded in writing. For invoking the jurisdiction of Labour Court under Sub-section (2) there is no need to file an application through appropriate government nor any time has been prescribed for making such application whereas for recovery of money due to workman under settlement or award under Sub-section (1) application is required to be made to the appropriate government for issuance of certificate to the Collector within one year of the date from which the amount is due. Under Section 33 (C) (2), a workman has to approach the Labour Court by making direct application. 17. In present case, there is an award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) in favour of the respondent directing the petitioners to re-engage him forthwith. It is apparent from the record that on failure to re-engage the petitioner, the petitioner had preferred an application to the appropriate government for issuance of recovery certificate. 17. In present case, there is an award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) in favour of the respondent directing the petitioners to re-engage him forthwith. It is apparent from the record that on failure to re-engage the petitioner, the petitioner had preferred an application to the appropriate government for issuance of recovery certificate. The appropriate government after due satisfaction had issued a certificate to the Collector for Rs. 6,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent on the basis of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P2) passed in Reference No. 47 of 2005. The petitioners have admitted their liability and have satisfied the recovery certificate by paying an amount of Rs. 6,000/- as calculated by the appropriate government under Section 33 (C) sub-section (1) of Industrial Disputes Act. 18. The award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure-P-2), has attained finality and liability for non compliance of the said award has been admitted by the petitioners. However, even after paying Rs. 6,000/- for non compliance of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2), for a certain period, the petitioners have not complied with the directions of the award by offering appointment to the respondent even thereafter. Hence, the respondent was entitled to receive an amount from the petitioners in lieu of the benefit of re-engagement granted to the respondent by award of Labour Court. 19. For computation and payment of amount due, the respondent was entitled to make an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court and the respondent had rightly made an application dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P-7) directly to the Labour Court and Labour Court has rightly passed an order dated 28.10.2013 in Application No. 4 of 2011. The objection of the petitioners that application was not maintainable directly to the Labour Court and the same was time barred is not sustainable and hence rejected. 20. The documents placed on record by the parties indicate that the respondent had approached the petitioners for joining in compliance of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P2) in the month of July, 2005. However, the petitioners had failed to comply with the directions of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) at that time. Vide Office Order dated 20.02.2006 the petitioners have claimed to offer the job to the respondent with further allegations that the respondent had not reported within time stipulated in the said order i.e. on or before 22.02.2006. However, the petitioners had failed to comply with the directions of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) at that time. Vide Office Order dated 20.02.2006 the petitioners have claimed to offer the job to the respondent with further allegations that the respondent had not reported within time stipulated in the said order i.e. on or before 22.02.2006. The respondent has placed on record application dated 23.02.2006 stating that he had already submitted himself for joining in July, 2005 and there was no need for fresh submission. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the order dated 20.02.2006 had been posted on 21st February, 2006 and when the same was received by the respondent, it was impossible to report on or before 22.02.2006. The dispatch of office order dated 20.02.2006, 21.02.2006 is evident from the postal receipt dated 21.02.2006 placed on record by the petitioners. In these circumstances, the plea of the petitioners that the respondent had not responded to the offer within stipulated time and therefore, has lost the right for the job is also not sustainable and hence rejected. 21. The petitioners have also submitted that Community Development Scheme stood closed on 31.03.2007 and therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any relief or benefit or amount on the basis of award dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P-2). It has come on record that the petitioners have continued other employees engaged under the same scheme and later on those employees were offered the appointment in the department. The respondent has placed on record the judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed in CWP No. 7185 of 2010, on inquiry the learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record letter dated 27.04.2016 sent from the Director, Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, addressed to learned Advocate General, State of H.P. which indicates that similarly situated employees have been offered appointment on their representation dated 22.09.2012 submitted in compliance of judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed in CWP No. 7185 of 2010. Therefore, the plea of closure of scheme is not justified and the same is of no help to the petitioner in the present case. 22. The plea of the petitioners that respondent has voluntarily abandoned the job since February, 2006 and had not turned up submitting himself for accepting the job is also negated from the documents placed on record by the petitioner, as discussed supra. 23. 22. The plea of the petitioners that respondent has voluntarily abandoned the job since February, 2006 and had not turned up submitting himself for accepting the job is also negated from the documents placed on record by the petitioner, as discussed supra. 23. It is also evident from the record that respondent had approached the petitioners in the month of July, 2005 and the respondent had also responded to the office order dated 20.02.2006 by submitting letter on 23.02.2006 stating that he had already submitted himself to the petitioners for his re-engagement. From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioners are avoiding re-engagement of the respondent despite his legal right flowing from award dated 29.06.2005, which has never been assailed by the petitioners. 24. No other point urged and put forward on behalf of the parties. The petitioners were and are legally bound to engage the respondent in compliance of award dated 29.06.2010 as it has been duly accepted by them, and failure to re-engage the respondent by the petitioners has conferred right upon the respondent to recover the amount in lieu of the benefit of re-engagement in his favour particularly when the petitioners have already paid Rs. 6,000/- for non compliance of the award for a certain period. 25. The omissions and commissions on the part of petitioners in present case are arbitrary which runs contrary to ‘Rule of Law’. It is expected from State to behave like a model employer and abide by law. Attempt to frustrate the awards, judgments and orders passed by Courts by adopting course other than permissible under law is not expected from the State and its functionaries who are custodians of rights of common citizen. Legal course to get rid of an award, judgment and order passed by Courts is to get the same set aside from next higher Court. The petitioners have not assailed award dated 29.05.2016 but are agitating to deny the fruits flowing from the said award, which has become final and has been accepted by the petitioners. 26. Considering all documents placed on record, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and respondent, as discussed above, the petition is devoid of merits hence the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.