1. A question of seminal importance, as to whether under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the “I.D.Act”), the Labour Court is empowered to award interest, which has not been specifically granted in an award passed under the I.D. Act, is raised herein. When computation in terms of money is sought on the basis of a legal entitlement or on the basis of an award or settlement, and there is no specific provision to grant interest, could the principles of equity be invoked? When the claim is based on an award, will not the grant of interest be regulated by the award and will not an award; silent on that aspect be deemed to be a refusal of interest? The question is raised on the well established principle, that the Labour Court, under Section 33C(2), exercises power akin to an execution court as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for brevity “CPC”].

2. The background facts are that the petitioner in the writ petition was a Conductor of a stage carriage operated by the management. A checking conducted on a particular day, revealed ticket-less travel of two passengers. The Conductor was charge-sheeted and found guilty in an enquiry and imposed punishment of dismissal from service. On a reference made, as to the justifiability of such dismissal, the enquiry conducted against the workman was sustained. When the matter was taken for final hearing, on the question of proportionality of punishment, an endorsement was made that the parties had settled the dispute. Later, the workman resiled from the said settlement and filed an application for considering the question on merits since the workman contended that he was not aware of the consequences and the full implication of the compromise terms.

3. The Industrial Tribunal, Kollam recused itself from the case and it was then transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The said Tribunal considered the issue on merits and found that there was absolutely no case of misappropriation and the ticket-less travel could not, at all, be attributed to the Conductor. The Tribunal found that there was undue rush on that day, in the stage carriage and the conductor could not be faulted. The Tribunal, under Section 11A, interfered with the punishment of dismissal and modified it to one of warning. The relief granted was in the following terms:

“The workman is entitled for reinstatement of service with the benefit of full backwages. The award is passed accordingly”.

4. The management challenged the award before this Court in a writ petition, then a writ appeal and finally a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all of which ended in favour of the workman. The order of reinstatement and award of backwages stood confirmed. Admittedly after the award was passed on 11.11.1994, when the matter was pending before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the workman was reinstated in service on February 1996. This was pursuant to a specific order dated 13.12.1998 passed in O.P.No.15787 of 1995 directing reinstatement of the workman, as verified by me from the judges papers of the said case.

5. The subsequent proceedings will also be of some import. O.P.No.15787/1995 challenging the award was disposed of by judgment dated 05.01.2005, which judgment stood affirmed in W.A No.848/2005, by judgment dated 31.01.2006. SLP (C) No.10761/2006 filed by the management stood dismissed on 26.10.2007. The petitioner in the meanwhile, had retired from service on 30.04.2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The workman then, approached the Labour Court, under Section 33C(2) with Claim Petition No.48/2009, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 27.01.2011.

6. The Labour Court under Section 33C(2) granted the entire backwages claimed by the workman; which stood admitted by the management. The claim for interest specifically raised before the Labour Court, under Section 33C(2), stood declined for the reason that the award of t