IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 645 of 2009 (M/S) Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Iqbalpur, Haridwar District Haridwar through its Legal Officer Ramesh Kumar S/o Sri Ram Lochan. ……Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar District Haridwar 2. Ram Gopal S/o Sri Paltu Ram R/o Village Molna P.O. Iqbalpur, Haridwar District Haridwar. 3. District Magistrate/Collector, Haridwar District Haridwar. 4. Tehsildar Roorkee, District Haridwar. …….Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik Senior Advocate with Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State/respondents No. 1,3 & 4 Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Dated:-12-08-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief’s:- 1. Issue, Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure- 10) passed by respondent no.1. 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3&4 not to recover any amount from the petitioner company as stated in order dated 31.03.2009 and in pursuance of the said order till the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. 3. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Award cost of the petition. This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the recovery citation was issued against the petitioner under section 6H-1 of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 without taking recourse of Section 6H-2 of the said Act Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that it is the case of the admitted liability. It is stated in the petition that petitioner company moved an application to this effect that the application 6H(1) is not maintainable and the computation under section 6H(2) should be done but no action was taken on the said application of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally without his counter version as on today. This fact is not disputed since, no computation was made by Assistant Labour Commissioner under section 6H(2) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 according to the petitioner. The petition is given liberty, he may move an application afresh under section 6H(2) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner within a period of 4 weeks and thereafter the Assistant Labour Commissioner is further directed to the same shall be decided on the basis of award after hearing the party with in a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of objection. On 06.05.2009, it was directed by this court, if the petitioner pays Rs. One Lakh to respondent No.2 within the period four weeks from today i.e. 06.05.2009, the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 31.03.2009 passed by respondent shall remain stayed. According to the petitioner, this amount had already been paid to the workmen, the amount paid shall be adjusted after computation under section 6H(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act if paid to the workmen and recovery against the petitioner shall also be kept abeyance till the disposal of the application and computation is made under Section 6H (2) of said Act by the respondent No.1. With the said observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order passed by this court stands modified. (B.S.Verma, J.) 12-08-2010 JM