ORDER : 1.0. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.06.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer (J.D.), Labour Court No.3, Vadodara, in Recovery (C- 2) Application No.320 of 2009, whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay salary from 01.05.2005 to 14.10.2009 as also other admissible benefits with interest from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2009 till its realization at the rate of 9% simple interest. 2.0. The respondent – workman, by filing aforesaid application before the Labour Court, contended that earlier also the petitioner was not paid his due salary from July 2003 to April 2006 as also the payment of bonus. However, he had preferred a reference before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), wherein the Labour Court directed the payment thereof with 12% compound interest, which was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.12424 of 2009, which came to be allowed to an extent the Labour Court awarded interest which is not provided under ‘the Act’. Therefore, again for non-payment of salary from 01.05.2005 to 14.10.2009, he has preferred a reference under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’. 3.0. Though petitioner, pursuant to a service of notice, filed reply vide Exhibit-6 to the reference contending that after office hours on 31.03.2004, the service of the respondent – workman was terminated and therefore, he is not entitled for such salary for which recovery application is filed. Neither on behalf of petitioner anyone entered the witness box nor any documents produced in support of such assertion / claim made in the written reply. Therefore, after recording the evidence on behalf of the respondent – workman and considering the documents produced and proved by him and when the evidence produced by the respondent – workman has gone unchallenged, on appreciation of it, the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present petition. 4.0. Mr. 4.0. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is undisputed fact that the services of the respondent – workman came to be terminated on 31.03.2004 and, therefore, he is not entitled for the wages, as claimed in the present petition, which is claimed from 01.05.2005 to 14.10.2009, in absence of challenge to his termination order before the competent forum. Therefore, according to his submission, the Labour Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and award, which is required to be set aside. 4.1. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was transferred, he did not join his service at the transferred place and having secured order in earlier proceedings, he has sought for such recovery even without serving anywhere. Therefore, according to submission of Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, the respondent – workman is not entitled to the wages for the period, which is asked for and granted under impugned judgment and award. He has further submitted that in view of decision in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Brijpalsingh reported in (2005) 8 SCC 58 , more particularly, relying on para Nos.11 and 12, it is submitted that there has to be per-existing right or benefit determined and then only any proceedings under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ can be filed. In absence thereof, no application for recovery of the same can be entertained. 4.2. Drawing attention of the Court to first proviso under Section 33C(1) of ‘the Act’, it is submitted that the application under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ be made within one year from the date on which the money become due to the workman from the employer and therefore, according to his submission, the reference filed before the Labour Court was barred by delay and, therefore, it should have been rejected. 4.3. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of this Court rendered on 29.07.2010 in Special Civil Application No.12424 of 2009, submitted that in a proceeding between the very same party when it is held that there is no provision for grant of interest in an application under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ and therefore, the said finding, in absence of challenge to it, would bind the present respondent – workman and no interest could have been awarded by the Labour Court. 5.0. As against that, Mr. 5.0. As against that, Mr. G.K.Rathod, learned advocate for respondent – workman, submitted that the so-called termination order dated 31.03.2004, claimed to be passed on beat of drum, was never served to the respondent – workman. Not only that, no such order was ever produced in the proceedings before the Labour Court and therefore, there is no question of challenging so-called termination order. He has further submitted that though it is asserted in the reply, in absence of either production thereof or any assertion on oath on their behalf, before the Labour Court, no cognizance of such oral assertion, as made in the reply, be entertained. Therefore, he requests that this petition be rejected. 5.1. So far as contention with regard to the service of the respondent – workman came to be terminated as he did not report at the transferred place is concerned, according to the case of the respondent – workman when he went to the transferred place to take over the charge, the person holding charge did not vacate it and though he complained to the management but no efforts were made by them to see that respondent – workman takes charge at transferred place and therefore, order of termination remains only on the file, if at all it is passed, without serving it to the respondent – workman or producing it before the Court and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. 5.2. So far as contention with regard to limitation is concerned, it is submitted that the first proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 33C of ‘the Act’, it speaks about issuance of recovery certificate for which there is a limitation provided therein, whereas filing of an application under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ is concerned, there is no such limitation provided for. Therefore, he submitted that the said contention is meritless. He has further submitted that even the very fact of termination order dated 31.03.2004 came to be adjudicated in a petition challenging earlier order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ praying for wages from July 2003 to April 2006. Despite that, the petition preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected and therefore, no cognizance thereof is required in this proceeding. 5.3. Mr. Despite that, the petition preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected and therefore, no cognizance thereof is required in this proceeding. 5.3. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for respondent – workman, relying on a decision in the case of Saijpur Bogha Nagar Palika Octroi Karmachari Mandal & Anr. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. reported in 1991 (2) GLR 956 , submitted that in contracts of employment, payment of salary as it falls due is implied and for wrongful withholding of payment, interest at a reasonable rate must be awarded. Drawing attention to para-44 of said reported judgment, he submitted that considering the provisions of Contract Act, the Court as a principle held that interest at a reasonable rate is permissible and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court and challenge to it by way of this petition is required to be rejected. 6.0. Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties as also having gone through the impugned judgment and award along with petition, annexures annexed with it and scrutinizing it in detail, the filing of proceeding before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of ‘the Act’ appears to be maintainable. When in an earlier round of litigation, very same issue was raised between the same parties with regard to entitlement of the wages for a period from July 2003 to 2005, is concerned, the very argument about termination order dated 31.03.2004 was raised by the petitioner, however it did not weigh with the Court as it was not served to workman nor produced before the Court. The period subsequent to such so-called termination was also covered for the claim of wages in the said proceedings. At any rate, when the petitioner has not entered into the witness box nor produced such termination order, as claimed, mere assertion in any proceedings including before this Court would be of no help to it. 7.0. Though Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has asserted that it is undisputed fact that the services of the respondent – workman were terminated on 31.03.2004, it is all the more disputed since beginning by the learned advocate for the respondent – workman, as it was never served or nor produced anywhere. 7.0. Though Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has asserted that it is undisputed fact that the services of the respondent – workman were terminated on 31.03.2004, it is all the more disputed since beginning by the learned advocate for the respondent – workman, as it was never served or nor produced anywhere. Therefore, the argument that he is not entitled for the wages for a period subsequent to his date of termination is without any basis and it requires out right rejection. 8.0. So far as second submission with regard to respondent – workman is not joining the service at transferred place after securing first order from the Labour Court in earlier round of litigation dis-entitles him for the wages for subsequent period is concerned, Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent – workman, has submitted that as deposed to before the Labour Court, he had gone to take over the charge at transferred place, he was not permitted to resume the duty as person working at that post did not vacate the charge and despite drawing attention of the management, they had done nothing. However, as recorded in the impugned judgment and award, for the period after his transfer and so-called termination, the respondent – workman was granted wages by it, which is confirmed upto the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, there is no merit in the said contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. So far as reliance placed on the case of State of U.P. and Anr. (Supra), more particularly para -11 and 12 thereof, is concerned, it is clear that the benefit claimed in that application is flowing from pre-existing right to wages. As also in both those paragraphs previous precedents of Supreme Court were referred. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no pre-existing right to seek recovery thereof and therefore, the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9.0. The ground of limitation raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the recovery application claiming wages for a period from 01.05.2005 to 14.10.2009 and therefore, in view of first proviso to Section 33C(1) of ‘the Act’, it should have been preferred within one year from the date on which money become due. Therefore, according to submission of Mr. Therefore, according to submission of Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, to claim wages upto 14.10.2009, it could have been filed within a period of one year therefrom i.e. upto at least 14.10.2010. However, the said argument is misconceived. The limitation provided for in it is for requesting appropriate government for issuance of recovery certificate, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 33C of ‘the Act’ and present proceeding is not being under sub-section (1) of Section 33C of ‘the Act’, the said limitation would not apply to it. Hence, that submission is also without any merit. 10.0. So far as contention that the provision itself is not providing for an interest on said amount and when this Court in a proceeding in between party, set aside that portion of interest in earlier proceedings, the said finding would bind the present respondent – workman, is concerned, is also without any merit. Though it has been so stated in the order between the same party but it was for a particular period stated therein and it has not been determined as a principle considering the provisions as also the right to interest under a contract of employment. Not only that when there is a Division Bench judgment determining the issue of interest in respect of contract of employment, where it has been held that interest at a reasonable rate, must be awarded for wrongful withholding payment thereof. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court awarding interest over the amount determined which is granted from the date of application made and therefore, this petition must fail on all the counts and it is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.