JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.06.2011 impugned at Annexure-J as also the order dated 08.05.2012 impugned at Annexure-M. The subsequent action pursuant to the same taken through the orders dated 22.05.2012 and 06.10.2012 are impugned at Annexures-N and R. 2. The brief facts on which the present dispute arises is that, in respect of certain action taken by the petitioner-Corporation against the respondent No.4 herein, the matter had resulted in a proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.132/2004. The Industrial Tribunal, through its award dated 19.02.2008 had set aside the punishment orders dated 25.04.2001 and 29.06.2001, though the punishment orders dated 31.12.2002 and 20.10.2003 were upheld. 3. In view of the punishment orders dated 25.04.2001 and 29.06.2001 being set aside in the said proceedings and the same having attained finality, the financial benefits available to the respondent No.4 was required to be calculated and be paid by the petitioner- Corporation. At that stage, as per the calculation that had been made by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,00,530/- was found due to be paid and the same was paid. The respondent No.4 was however dissatisfied with such consideration as made by the petitioner and therefore approached the respondent No.3 seeking recovery of the entire amount which according to the respondent No.4 was in a sum of Rs.2,69,767/-. 4. The respondent No.3 having accepted the contention put forth by the respondent No.4 herein has passed the impugned order, pursuant to which the matter has been forwarded to the respondent No.2 for recovery as arrears of land revenue which has resulted in consequent action for recovery. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders by which such recovery proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the impugned orders which are at Annexures-J, N and R. 5. In the light of the above, having taken note that the claim as being put forth by the respondent No.4 is in view of the award dated 19.02.2008 passed in I.D.No.132/2004 and in that light, when the orders imposing the punishment was set aside, the issue is as to the nature of the proceedings that would entail subsequent to the same. 6. In a normal circumstance, it would be for the employer to implement the award. 6. In a normal circumstance, it would be for the employer to implement the award. The petitioner herein having proceeded to implement the award dated 19.02.2008 have taken into consideration the pay scale of the respondent No.4 and at the first instance indicated the amount due and payable to the respondent No.4 at Rs.1,00,530/- which has been paid. It is no doubt true that, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner themselves has admitted of certain error in the calculation which had been made by them and it was also indicated in the petition that a further sum of Rs.54,569/- is payable to the respondent No.4. Though such indication is made, the petitioner in any event owning the responsibility of calculating the amount and paying the balance amount which is due and that has also been paid through the cheque dated 23.11.2012. 7. As already indicated, the respondent No.4 was claiming a higher amount by filing the proceedings before the respondent No.3. In that circumstance, when the extent of the amount as claimed by the respondent No.4 is not admitted and a sum of Rs.1, 55, 099/- which according to petition being due is paid to the respondent No.4, in a normal circumstance, if the workman is dissatisfied an appropriate computation was required to be made in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Instead, without the amount being quantified, the same being held to be due by the orders impugned and action taken for recovery would not be justified. Accordingly, the orders impugned no doubt will have to be set aside by this Court. Even after doing so, the respondent No.4 cannot be left without no remedy to put forth the claim which according to the respondent No.4 is claimed to be still due to him. 8. Therefore, to enable the same, the respondent No.4 is granted the liberty of indicating the nature of the calculations, based on which a higher amount is being claimed by the respondent No.4, after deducting the sum of Rs.1, 55, 099/- that has been paid. The same would be made by filing a representation to the petitioner- Corporation. 8. Therefore, to enable the same, the respondent No.4 is granted the liberty of indicating the nature of the calculations, based on which a higher amount is being claimed by the respondent No.4, after deducting the sum of Rs.1, 55, 099/- that has been paid. The same would be made by filing a representation to the petitioner- Corporation. On such representation being received, the petitioner-Corporation shall take note of the manner in which the claim has been put forth by the respondent No.4 and indicate reasons, if the same is not acceptable, so that the respondent No.4 can avail his remedies in accordance with law. 9. Needless to mention, if the indication as made by the respondent No.4 in the representation is justified and is acceptable to the petitioner, appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date on which it is filed with the respondent No.1. In any event, on consideration of the representation, if the grievance of the respondent No.4 is not redressed, the respondent No.4 would thereafter have the liberty of filing an appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the competent Court. If such application is filed, the competent Court shall proceed further to consider the same on merits, instead of going into the aspect of delay in that regard. Contentions in that regard are left open. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 at Annexure-J, order dated 08.05.2012 at Annexure-M, order dated 22.05.2012 at Annexure-N and order dated 06.10.2012 at Annexure-R are set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of.