IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.970 of 2010 Suraj Ram & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 5. 11.7.2011. Heard Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Anant Kumar, Assisting Counsel to AAG-2 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. It is now more than 21 years since relief was provided to the petitioners by the Labour Court. Facts of the case briefly stated is that an award was passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioners on 12.2.1990. The writ preferred by the respondents challenging the award was dismissed on 8.2.1991 vide order passed in C.W.J.C.No.5450 of 1990. This was followed by filing of a miscellaneous case by the workmen-petitioners herein under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for non compliance of the award bearing Misc.no.9 of 1991 which subsequently was re-numbered as Misc.Case No.5 of 1994 after the transfer of the case to Begusarai. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the part payment received by the petitioners, vide order dated 4.12.2006 2 directed for payment of a further amount of Rs.47059/- to each of the workmen. In between, an undertaking was also given on behalf of the State in C.W.J.C.No.13653 of 2000 when on 16.3.2003, a statement was made that the respondents were duty bound to comply the award. Yet it is only today that a second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by one Kaushlendra Prasad, Executive Engineer, Flood Control Board, Samastipur informing this Court that the legal representative of the workmen, who are petitioners herein, have been paid their dues in the light of the award dated 12.2.1990 in compliance of the directions dated 4.12.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Begusarai in Misc.Case No.5 of 1994. A sweeping statement has been made in paragraph-8 of the said second supplementary counter affidavit that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. No explanation has been given by the deponent Executive Engineer as to the delay of 21 years in implementing the award and more than four and half years since passing of the order dated 4.12.2006 in Misc.Case No.5 of 1994 under section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3 The sequence of the events, as taken note of in this order, speaks volumes of the harassment and unnecessary protracted litigation to which the petitioners herein have been subjected to at the hands of the State and its authorities in the department of Water Resources whereby the State, who by indulging the petitioners in luxurious litigations, had denied their reliefs for 21 years since the passing of the award. Even the order under section 33 (C) (2) of the Act was not sufficient for the respondents to comply the same and which forced the petitioners again to come before this Court for the reliefs to which they had become entitled as back as on 12.2.1990. This court is fully satisfied that the delay is unexplained, culpable and avoidable and the petitioners deserve to be amply compensated. Although this court was prima facie of the opinion to award interest with effect from the date of award but taking lenient view of the matter, this court in the interest of justice, directs the respondent nos.2 to 6 herein to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount payable to the petitioners under the order dated 4.12.2006 passed in Misc.Case No.5 4 of 1994 w.e.f. 4.12.2006 until the date the actual payments were made. The calculation of interest and its payment should be made to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)