JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Tiwari for the sixth respondent-workman and Shri Prabhav Srivastava, holding brief of Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank. 2. In this petition, the following principal reliefs have been claimed : “(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash- (i) ex-parte order dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure 14) passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, issuing recovery certificate under Section 6-H (1), without adjudication by Labour Court under U.P. Industrial Dispute Act on the application dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure 13) filed by respondent No. 6, for salary, leave encashment and annual bonus for the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010, whereas he has already withdrawn salary as per Rules through regular salary bills as well as permissible bonus and he is not entitled to get encashment of annual leave under the Rules; (ii) order issuing recovery dated 9.8.2010 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, for total Rs. 6,28,701 i.e. (4,89,615/- + Rs. 1,39,086/-) refusing to adjust the amount already drawn by respondent as monthly salary from Nagar Palika including for the period from February 2008 to 31.12.2009, and further refused to deduct amount of yearly encashment of leave and bonus which is not payable under Rules/Government order issued by State Government, in asmuch as there is no adjudication for period of February 2008 to 31.12.2009, by the Labour Court vide Annexure 9 and 10; (B) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Labour Court/Deputy Labour Commissioner to permit the Nagar Palika to make adjustment of Payment already and directly made to respondent No. 6 as monthly salary etc. being regular employee after the award dated 1.6.1991 and under subsequent Government order dated 3.2.1992 for regularization; (C) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 6 not to claim salary etc. through Labour Court or Deputy Labour Commissioner for the period, which is already being received by him directly from Nagar Palika.” 3. Record in question reflects that the sixth respondent namely Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was working as Pump Attendant in Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar (in short, the Parishad) since 17.6.1987 on daily wages, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Meerut and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1989. Record in question reflects that the sixth respondent namely Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was working as Pump Attendant in Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar (in short, the Parishad) since 17.6.1987 on daily wages, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Meerut and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1989. The Labour Court passed an award on 1.6.1991 in favour of the respondent workman. By the said award, the respondent workman was regularized w.e.f. 17.6.1987 as Pump Attendant (Class-IV employee) alongwith regular pay and other benefits of the said post. Admittedly the said award in question was assailed by the Parishad before this Court by preferring a writ petition, which was dismissed and as such, the same has attained finality. Consequently the respondent workman was reinstated and his services were regularized. In terms of the award in question, he had been paid regular salary w.e.f. 23.5.1992. He had also received the difference of back wages from 17.6.1978 to 23.5.1992. 4. Thereafter the respondent workman had moved an application under Section 6-H (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) claiming that he was entitled for the difference of amount as has been paid to other similarly situated employees. On the said application notices were issued to the Parishad and the Parishad had put in appearance. Finally, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut issued a recovery certificate on 19.9.1996 for an amount of Rs. 18,078/- towards difference of back wages. In terms of the said order an amount of Rs. 19,886/- alongwith interest was paid to the workman by voucher dated 11.12.1996. After 18 years on 16.3.2009 the workman had again filed an application under Section 15 (2) of Payment of Wages Act before the Prescribed Authority claiming Rs. 58,023/- towards difference of salary for the period 1.2.2008 to 31.1.2009, leave encashment etc. and the said case was registered as Case No. 19 of 2009. The said claim was objected by the Parishad through detailed reply dated 1.7.2009. 5. After 18 years on 1.4.2009 the respondent workman had again moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, which is equivalent to Section 6-H (1) for recovery of Rs. 4,41,098/- towards salary, leave encashment, bonus for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.12.2008. The said application was allowed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 14.9.2009. The petitioner had filed the restoration application, which was registered as Misc. 4,41,098/- towards salary, leave encashment, bonus for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.12.2008. The said application was allowed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 14.9.2009. The petitioner had filed the restoration application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 79 of 2009 and the said case was dismissed on 20.4.2010. The said order had been assailed by the petitioner before this Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 28334 of 2010 (Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U.P. and others) and the same was summarily dismissed by this Court on 19.5.2010 with following observations : “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that number of dates were fixed to enable it to file the reply. Even then no reply was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fault was of its counsel who did not file the reply. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Kanteshwari Tiwari v. Badri Prasad and others, 2007(2) AWC 1057 . Considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit therein. The proceedings under the Labour Court should be disposed of expeditiously. It has been found in the impugned order that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner. The petitioner is bound by the acts of its counsel. I find no good ground to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.” 6. Record in question further reveals that the aforesaid order had been assailed by the petitioner before Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17282/2010 (Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarngar v. State of U.P. and others) and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 12.7.2010. Consequently an amount of Rs. 4,89,615/- had been paid to the petitioner in terms of the recovery citation dated 9.8.2010. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated on the fresh application, which has been moved by the petitioner under Section 6H (1) or 33-C(2) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the claim has been set up for payment of wages from February, 2008 to 31.12.2009. The Deputy Labour Commissioner passed a fresh order for payment of two amounts i.e. Rs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner passed a fresh order for payment of two amounts i.e. Rs. 4,89,615/- and Rs. 1,39,086/-. Consequently the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued recovery citation of Rs. 1,39,086/- and 4,89,615/- total amount Rs. 6,28,701/-. The petitioner is assailing the said order by preferring the present writ petition. At the admission stage, the present matter was entertained by this Court on 20.10.2011 and an interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioner and as such, in terms of the interim order dated 20.10.2011, no payment has been made to the workman. 7. In this backdrop, Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that in terms of the award in question the respondent workman has been reinstated in service and consequently his services were also regularized as Pump Operator. In terms of the regularization order, the application under Section 6H (1) or 33-C (2) of Act was not maintainable. In case the respondent workman was aggrieved, he could have approached to the department concerned but at no point of time he had approached to the authority concerned. He had approached to the Labour Court by preferring application under Section 6H (1). The entire proceeding is vitiated on this count and as such, the impugned demand is arbitrary and same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The similarly situated other employees have been paid salary and at no point of time, there was any disparity or no discrimination has been made by the department against the respondent workman. Admittedly, he was a confirmed employee of the Parishad and he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.6.2012. 8. Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent workman has vehemently contended that from very beginning the respondent workman was subjected to discrimination. No doubt the regularization order had been passed but the entire benefits have not been extended to him. Once the department concerned has not extended all the benefits to the respondent workman, he had approached to the Prescribed Authority and invoked the provisions contained under Section 6H (1) of the Act. He has further apprised to the Court that the workman has attained the age of superannuation on 31.6.2012 and after retirement, he has not been paid the gratuity and other retiral benefits by the department. He has further apprised to the Court that the workman has attained the age of superannuation on 31.6.2012 and after retirement, he has not been paid the gratuity and other retiral benefits by the department. Even he has not been extended the benefits of the VIth Pay Commission and as such, he is suffering irreparable loss. 9. Shri S.K. Tiwari further submits that the first proceeding under Section 6H (1) of the Act had been subjected to challenge before this Court and the said writ petition in question had been dismissed by this Court. Even the department had assailed the said order before Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) and the said appeal has been dismissed and as such, the said proceeding has been finalized and the amount of Rs. 4,89,615/- cannot be recovered from him at this stage after his retirement. He fairly submits that the respondent workman has already foregone an amount of Rs. 2,19,000/- and on the basis of instructions so received from his client, the respondent workman is also willing to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,39,086/- and the same may be adjusted in the retiral dues of the respondent workman. He prays that since the respondent workman has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on on 31.6.2012, a direction be issued to the petitioner to pay all the retiral dues of the respondent workman alongwith 12% interest after adjusting the aforesaid amount, otherwise the respondent workman will suffer irreparable loss. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that no doubt in pursuance of the award in question the services of the respondent workman had been regularized. The proceeding under Section 6H (1) of the Act was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 28334 of 2010 and this Court vide its order dated 19.5.2010 had dismissed the writ petition. The same was also subjected to challenge in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17282 of 2010 and Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 12.7.2010 had also rejected the same and as such this Court is of the considered opinion that the said proceeding had been finalized and no direction can be issued for recovery of the said amount in question from the respondent workman. So far as the other dues are concerned, much emphasis has been placed on the detailed pay bill, which is appended alongwith rejoinder-affidavit. Since the said proceeding initiated against the respondent workman has been affirmed upto Apex Court, therefore, whatever proceeding initiated by the respondent workman thereafter before the Labour Court under Section 6H (1)/33-C (2) of Act is unsustainable under the present facts and circumstances. Once the respondent workman was already a confirmed employee, then no such proceedings could be initiated by the respondent workman before the Labour Court and as such, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 11. In view of above, the impugned orders cannot sustained and are set aside. 12. In regard thereto, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with direction Parishad to pay the remaining retiral dues of the respondent workman after adjusting an amount of Rs. 3,58,086/- (Rs.1,39,086/- and Rs. 2,19,000/-), which has not been paid to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.