The Labour Court can award interest on delayed payments under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that such interest is compensatory for delays in implementing awards.

JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai to the extent of denial of interest on the legal dues payable towards implementation of the Award dated 16 September 1999.

2) Two workmen-Vijay Shankar Patil and Dilip S. Kotharkar were working with the Respondent-Bank and were terminated from service. At their instance, Reference CGIT No.2/13 of 1999 relating to their demand for reinstatement was registered with Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai (CGIT). The Reference was answered by the CGIT in favour of the workmen by setting aside their termination and directing their reinstatement with full backwages w.e.f. 29 May 1997 alongwith continuity of service. The Bank filed Writ Petition No.4510/2000 in this Court challenging the Award dated 16 September 1999. The Petition came to be dismissed by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30 August 2000. The Bank filed Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30 August 2000, which was registered as LPA No.37/2013. The Appeal Court dismissed the Appeal by judgment and order dated 10 June 2014. It appears that simultaneously, the workmen had filed Writ Petition No. 8402 of 2012 seeking implementation of the Award dated 16 September 1999. By separate order passed on 10 June 2014, the Division Bench disposed of the said Petition reserving liberty for the workmen to exercise appropriate remedy for enforcement of Award before the CGIT.

3) The two workmen accordingly filed Application No.2/06 of 2014 before the CGIT under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) seeking recovery of amount of Rs.27,55,500/-. The Application was resisted by the Respondent-Bank by filing Written Statement. The Bank contended that it had offered amount of Rs.1,99,280/- by demand draft dated 23 December 2014 which was returned by the workmen. That Shri. Vijay Patil never reported for duties and Shri. D.S. Kotharkar reported for duties as daily wager in July 2010 and continued to work till August 2015 after which he abandoned the service.

4) It appears that during pendency of the Application, the dues payable in respect of the two workmen were amended and scaled down to Rs.8,58,825/- each. The CGIT has partly allowed the application by directing that the amount of Rs.8,58,825/- be paid to the legal heirs of late, Dilip Kotharkar within a period of 2 months, failing which the said amounts would carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the order till realisation. The CGIT has however rejected the prayer for payment of 9% interest on the amount from the date of the Award. The legal heirs of the two workmen are aggrieved by the impugned order of the CGIT to the limited extent of denial of interest on the amount of wages and has accordingly filed the present petitions.

5) Mr. Gade, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the award for reinstatement and backwages was passed on 16 September 1999 and the same was not implemented by the Respondent-Bank for a considerable period of time. That the Award has been upheld both by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. Since the Award is upheld, the Petitioners must necessarily be paid interest on the amounts arising out of implementation of the Award. That Petitioners are not seeking interest in respect of the period prior to 16 September 1999. However, what becomes payable from 16 September 1999 and what is actually paid after the impugned order dated 29 August 2024 must necessarily carry interest.

6) Mr. Gade would submit that the CGIT has erred in holding that the award of interest would amount to creation of new right beyond the Award. He would rely upon judgment of this Court in Mrs. Prabhavati Ramgarib B. Versus. Divisonal Railway Manager, Western Railway Manager, , [2010 (4