JUDGMENT Alok Mathur, J. Heard Sri Gambhir Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ajay Rajendra learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition assailing the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Labour Court (First), Ghaziabad whereby the recovery certificate has been issued to recover an amount of Rs. 6,16,628/- for the satisfaction of the award passed by the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the entire award, the amount of compensation awarded to the workman was never quantified and there is no mention about the wages received by him during his services. In the said award, retrenchment has been held to be illegal and the petitioner has been directed to pay wages to the workman from the date of his termination till the date of his death. He has submitted that in case the said amount would have been quantified then appropriate proceedings could have been drawn under Section 6(H) (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where the workman could have made an application to the State Government for recovery of the money due to him and the State Government after being satisfied that the said money was so due on an obligation to issued a certificate for that amount to the Collector woh in turn proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 4. He submits that in the present case, the compensation was not quantified and consequently the only other mechanism provided under the Sub-Section 2 or Sub- Section 3 of Section 6(H) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under Sub-Section 2, the amount can be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 5. In this regard, Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957 has been placed before this Court wherein in the procedure for computing money value for a benefit has been provided, which are as follows:- "34. Procedure for computing money value of a benefit. 5. In this regard, Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957 has been placed before this Court wherein in the procedure for computing money value for a benefit has been provided, which are as follows:- "34. Procedure for computing money value of a benefit. - (1) Where the State Government has specified a Labour Court for the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, under subsection purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, under sub-section (2) of Section 6-H, the Labour Court may, by an order in writing, appoint a Commissioner for such computation and ask the Commissioner to report to the Labour Court within such time as may be specified in the order : Provided that the Labour Court may, either on its own motion or on an application made to it by the Commissioner, grant extension of time for submission of the report by the Commissioner. (2) The Commissioner shall be paid such fees, if any, as may be specified by the Labour Court in the order appointing the Commissioner and the amount of fee so fixed shall be recoverable from such party as the Court may direct. The party concerned shall in that case deposit the amount within a specified time with the Labour Court for deposit into the nearest Treasury. The Commissioner shall not issue his report until the amount of fees is deposited with the Labour Court by the party concerned : Provided that the party concerned may, from time to time, be directed by the Labour Court for deposit of further amounts, if any : Provided further that the Labour Court may, in its discretion, extend the time for depositing the sum by the party concerned. (3) The Labour Court may direct that the fees shall be disbursed to the Commissioner in such installments and on such dates, as it may think fit. (4) The undisbursed balance, if any, of the sum deposited, shall be refunded to the party which deposited the sum. " 6. This Court in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31505 of 2004 (Manik Chandra Srivastava v. Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur and Others), vide order dated 05.02.2009, has held as under:- "In my opinion, the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 6-H(1) for computation of the benefits in terms of the award was not maintainable. " 6. This Court in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31505 of 2004 (Manik Chandra Srivastava v. Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur and Others), vide order dated 05.02.2009, has held as under:- "In my opinion, the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 6-H(1) for computation of the benefits in terms of the award was not maintainable. In my opinion, the computation of the benefit in terms of the award, especially, the post award wages cannot be computed under Section 6-H(1) of the Act for the simple reason that other factors comes into play, namely, whether the petitioner had worked in terms of the award or not. In the present case, I find that the award does not speak clearly about the reinstatement of the workman. The award only states that the petitioner is entitled to such relief and compensation that is available under the law. Since there was no specific order of reinstatement and for payment of wages, such adjudication could not be made under Section 6H(1) of the Act and the remedy available, if any, could either be under Section 6H(2) of the Act where such benefit could be computed and adjudicated or a reference is made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act." 7. In the present case, it is clear that money payable to the respondent have not been quantified and is liable to be determined in accordance with Sub-Section 2 of Section 6(H) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the procedure as prescribed under Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 would indicate that an application was given by the respondent under Sub-Section 1 of Section 6(H) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was given by the workman to the Dy. Labour Court, Ghaziabad who himself proceeded to pass the said order. On the face of it, the said order is violative of Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957. 8. Application under Section 6 (H)(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would lie when either the awarded amount is quantified or capable of quantification without any contest as per the award. In case the money payable has to be determined then proceedings under Section 6(H)(2) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have to be resorted. 9. 8. Application under Section 6 (H)(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would lie when either the awarded amount is quantified or capable of quantification without any contest as per the award. In case the money payable has to be determined then proceedings under Section 6(H)(2) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have to be resorted. 9. It was mandatory for the dispute to have been referred to a Commissioner appointed by the State Government who after giving due opportunity to either of the parties should have made his recommendation and forwarded the same to the Labour Court for passing of appropriate orders. The procedure prescribed have not been followed renders the impugned order arbitrary and liable to interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Section 6(H)(2) & Section 6(H)(3) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in fact procedure as prescribed under Rule 34 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957 should have been followed by the petitioners in quantifying the amount payable to the respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Labour Court (First), Ghaziabad is set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner as having been made under Sub-section 2 of Section 6(H) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and proceed to refer the matter to the Commissioner who further in turn directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law as prescribed under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and forward his recommendation to the Labour Court. 11. Let the entire exercise be conducted expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority. 12. With the above, observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.