The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to award interest in a computation proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interest is a "benefit" capable of being computed in terms of money. The workman is entitled to claim interest as a benefit if the management fails to pay the awarded sum within the specified time frame.

Soumen Sen, J.

In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court on October 5, 2012 in a computation proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has computed the back-wages and other consequential benefits on and from September, 2002 till December, 2006 and, thereafter, awarded interest @ 10% for the aforesaid period till its actual realization.

2. The partition of the award allowing interest is the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding.

3. The award was passed ex parte since it appears from the record that the writ petitioner chose not to appear in the said proceeding. The record of the proceedings reveal that the writ petitioner initially entered appearance and contested the application filed under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by filing their written statement, but subsequently did not turn up to adduce any evidence after completion of the cross-examination of PW-1. The Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court, accordingly, had no other option, but to proceed with the application and in an elaborate and well considered judgment awarded various reliefs, which, inter alia, include payment of backwages with other consequential benefits on and from September, 2002 till December, 2006.

4. The award was passed on July 22, 2010 and under the award the writ petitioner was directed to calculate the back-wages and other arrears in terms of the last drawn salary of the applicant. The prayer for re-instatement of service became infructuous since the writ petitioner had retired from service in the year 2006. The said award was published and notified immediately thereafter. The writ petitioner thereafter made a demand for payment in terms of the said award. The writ petitioner Company ignored such demand resulting in a proceeding initiated under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Like the previous proceeding, this time also the Company allowed the proceeding to continue ex parte and on the basis of the materials on record, the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court passed the impugned order dated October 15, 2002. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the Company had no knowledge of the award and as soon as they became aware of the award, the writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 103,253.88. The said amount has been duly paid to the private respondent on July 25, 2013. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the direction with regard to the payment of interest in a computation proceeding is without jurisdiction. The award is silent with regard to the payment of interest and the Labour Court, which basically acts as an executing court cannot go beyond the award and direct payment of interest for the aforesaid period. There is a clear distinction between a pre-existing right or benefit on the one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand. While the Labour Court would have the jurisdiction to decide any pre-existing right or benefit, the Labour Court is denuded of any jurisdiction to decide the right or benefit, which the Labour Court might find just and fair. It is submitted that awarding of interest although could have been a natural consequence for non-payment under the award in time the Labour Court, however, does not have any such jurisdiction to grant interest in absence of any specific direction mentioned in the said award.

5. The aforesaid argument is based upon the decisions which the learned Counsel have relied, namely:-

(i) Krishnamurthi (A.) & Ors. v. The Mall; 1964 (11) LLJ 88

(ii) Management of Nathan's Press, Madras v. K. Krishnan & Ors.; 1988 (57) FLR 873

(iii) State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.; AIR 2000 SC 3734 : (2001) 1 SCC 73 : LNIND 2000 SC 1528 : 2000-II-LLJ-1660

(iv) A.P.SRTC & Anr. v. B.S. David Paul, AIR 2006 SC 961 : (2006) 2 SCC 282 : LNIND 2006 SC 67.

If the contention of the writ p