1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3041/1997 State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal Lal & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : : 3rd April, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ******* Shri N.K. Bhatt, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner ## This writ petition has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order of Labour Court dated 17.8.1996 by which application of respondent under Section 33C(2) has been allowed and the petitioner has been required to pay to him a sum of Rs.34,934/- within a period of two months with the further stipulation that if no such payment is made, interest @ 12% per annum shall be paid to him. Shri N.K. Bhatt, learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the Labour Court has erred in law in directing payment of the said amount in the scope of Section 33C(2). It is argued that the Labour Court in view of Section 33C(2) merely compute the payable sum, but it cannot adjudicate a dispute. Learned counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Delhi vs. Ganesh Razzak-1995 (1) LLN 402 and argued that in that case Supreme Court while dealing with the application under Section 33C(2) has held that the Labour Court could not adjudicate the dispute related to entitlement of the workman of wages and that such power can be exercised only when entitlement can be duly adjudicated upon earlier or 2 recognised by the employer. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that in any case the Labour Court in the scope of Section 33C(2) does not possess any power to direct interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner. On hearing learned Additional Government Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I find that the Labour Court had passed the aforesaid order on the basis of award already passed in favour of respondent-workman by it on 10.1.1991. The Labour Court by the said award held such action illegal and directed that the workman be paid regular pay scale on completion of two years. The management filed writ petition no.3033/1993 against the aforesaid award. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgement dated 29.1.1994 and the award was thus upheld. The Labour Court in the present case under Section 33C(2) has merely computed the sum payable to the workman by treating the workman to have been conferred with semi permanent status on completion of two years from 1.4.1989. In other words, the workman has been treated to have been conferred semi permanent status with effect from 1.4.1989 and accordingly computation was made. There is therefore no illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court. As regards the question of interest, as it is the Labour Court did not directly require the management to pay interest. It firstly required the management to pay the quantified amount within two months, subject to the further 3 condition that if such payment is not made within aforesaid period, the management shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. There is therefore no merit in the submissions that the Labour Court could not have directed for payment of interest. Even otherwise, this Court being cognizant of the fact that the respondents have retained the money of the workman for such a long period of time, earlier by not complying with the award of Labour Court and now pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 29.5.1997, the workman cannot be deprived of the interest on his money retained by the management. However, the rate of interest at 12% per annum appears to be excessive and, therefore, the management shall now pay to the workman interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount. The writ petition is partly allowed. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of two months from the date copy of this judgement is received by the petitioner. A copy of this judgement be sent to the respondent for information. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. RS/5 All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.)