The Labour Court cannot award interest in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it exceeds its execution powers.

1. This writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of order dated 02.05.2012 passed by Labour Court, Agra in proceedings under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1947”), on the ground that the Labour Court was not competent to award interest in the said proceedings.

2. Facts leading to filing of writ petition are that opposite party no. 1, Mahesh Chandra was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on 01.05.1966 by U.P. State Electricity Commission at Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.1997. Provisional pension was sanctioned by Executive Engineer, Aligarh on 29.01.1997 subject to adjustment from his final pension by the Board. Before retirement, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh sent a letter to Executive Engineer, Electricity Store Division, Gandhi Nagar, Agra and also to respondent no. 1 about No Dues Certificate and E.P.F. Certificate. On 24.06.1997, Executive Engineer, Agra informed that total dues against respondent no. 1 was Rs.27,38,504/-. Thereafter, a detailed report was submitted by Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra on 21.07.1999 before Superintending Engineer regarding No Dues Certificate. The Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra informed the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh that there is dues of Rs.7,110/- against respondent no. 1. Due to aforesaid reasons, the retiral dues of respondent no. 1 was not paid within time by Department. Respondent no. 1, in the year 2000, filed an application under Section 33C (2) before respondent no. 2. A reply was filed by petitioner who contested the application on the ground that Labour Court could not award interest. By order impugned dated 02.05.2012, the Labour Court directed for payment of 18% interest in delay payment of pension, Provident Fund and leave encashment and also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- for expenses of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in proceedings under Section 33C (2) only the execution of award or settlement has to be done, and the workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. The Labour Court does not have power to grant interest. According to him, as there was outstanding balance against respondent no. 1 and No Dues Certificate was not provided, there was delay in payment of the retiral dues which were however paid to respondent no. 1 once No Dues Certificate was received. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court rendered in case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another , (2022) 5 SCC 629 and judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and another , (1995) 1 SCC 235 and also judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Union of India and another vs. Kankuben and others , (2006) 9 SCC 292

4. Opposing the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that the delay in payment of retiral dues was from petitioner’s side. According to him, the entire amount should have been paid when respondent no. 1 retired on 31.01.1997. The payment was made after a lapse of three years and Labour Court had rightly awarded interest. He has relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Phool Mohammad vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution & another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1722 and judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15945 of 2011, M.M. J