IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7546 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 19, 2009. Robot Engineers Private Limited, Plot No. 659, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director,Shri S.K. Juneja. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Sector-18, Chandigarh, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on an application filed by the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Counsel for the petitioner contends that an objection was raised by the Management that the workman was performing supervisory as well as administrative functions and, therefore, was not a workman which would entitle him the benefits under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. He contends that the said objection could be only decided on reference being made to the Labour Court and on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the same could not have been considered and decided. He further contends that the said application since could not have been entertained, the order impugned herein deserves to be set aside. Further the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the interest which has been granted to the workman @ 10% p.a. from the date of C.W.P. No. 7546 of 2009. filing of the application till the date of the order is on the higher side and since the Management has preferred Civil Revision No. 919 of 1996 which was pending in this Court and the same came to be decided only in 2008, and therefore, the Management should not be burdened with interest for the said period. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The objection which has been raised by the Management, has been dealt with by the Labour Court vide its order dated 18.03.2009, which is impugned herein. The contention of counsel for the petitioner with regard to the respondent not being a workman, does not hold good in the light of the fact that on an application moved under Section 33-C(2) of the Act by the respondent-workman, the Management in its reply has admitted the claim of the workman. It has been specifically stated in their reply that as per the official records, the workman is entitled to only following benefits from the Management under Section 33-C(2) of the Act i.e. (i) salary from 01.09.1994 to 06.09.1994 (ii) suspension allowance from 07.09.1994 to 09.10.1995. This is precisely the claim which has been granted by the Labour vide its order dated 18.03.2009. The claim having been admitted by the Management with regard to non payment of salary and the subsistence allowance, no fault can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while granting the said relief as the workman was entitled to the same from the petitioner-Management. As regards the interest which has been contended by counsel for the petitioner is on the higher side, also does not have much force. It is an admitted position that the workman was entitled to the said claims from -2- C.W.P. No. 7546 of 2009. the date it had become due. The Labour Court has only granted the workman interest from the date of his application i.e. 04.08.1995 and not earlier thereto. Discretion with regard to the grant of interest has been reasonably exercised by the Labour Court which do not call for interference by this Court. As regards the claim, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the period for which the workman has been held entitled to interest i.e. from the date of application till the date of order i.e. 18.03.2009. and thereafter till the date of realisation, also does not hold good merely because the Management has preferred a Civil Revision, challenging the proceedings before the Labour Court, but principles with regard to grant of interest primarily is that the amount due and the entitlement of a person if withheld unduly, the claimant would be entitled to the benefit of interest for the said period for which the amount was withheld without any justification. In the present case, the amount for which the workman was admittedly entitled to, was withheld by the Management from the date of application till the date of order and if the same has not been paid which is being withheld further without any justification or reason. The period for which the interest has been granted is also justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 19, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -3-