1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6780 OF 2009 M/s Javahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ... PETITIONER VERSUS Sarva Udhyog Kamgar Sangh ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. Ujjwal Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. The employer challenges the certification directing payment of bonus amount for the period 1985-86 and 1986-87 with interest at the rate of 10%. 3. The controversy indeed is resolved by virtue of directions in the Writ Petition No.3509/1990, dated 13.2.2002, wherein the Division Bench, in para No.12, has observed as under : 2 "12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 6th December 1989 passed under Section 36 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps to ensure that the employees of the respondent No.1 as represented by the petitioner at the relevant time, are paid bonus under the Act, expeditiously." 4. The other points tried to be agitated by the petitioner, are certainly foreclosed in the light of the directions of the Division Bench and, therefore, need not be traversed with. 5. The learned counsel for the employer contended, the employer is ready and willing to discharge his liability to pay the bonus for the relevant period, however, the workers' whereabouts are not available as they have left their addresses which are with the employer. There was no communication with the employees. Even if this is factual situation, however, the spirit in Writ Petition No. 3509/1990 need not be obliterated and the employer (writ petitioner) is bound to deposit the amount with the respondent herein (Sarva Udhyog Kamgar Sangh), to facilitate its regular disbursement to the legitimate and eligible employees. 6. The another faset, which is emerged in the matter is that, the calculated figure of dues of bonus is indicated by the authorities 3 concerned, the order/ certification directs payment of interest at the rate of 10% p.a. During the course of submission, a query was made to the learned counsel for the Union as to under what provision the interest was directed to be paid. On verification of statutory arrangement, she confirms that Bonus Act does not contemplate the payment of interest on such dues. 7. The learned counsel for the Union, by placing judgments of High Court of Madras, decided on 31.10.1999, (1989 LawSuit (Madras) 235) in the matter of E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, informs that the payment was directed by the Division Bench. It was a case where excess payment was made to the employees on account of bonus due to erroneous calculations made by the employer or their organisation. In para No.13, based on the entitlement to a lesser amount and on excess payment issued by the employer, the Division Bench directed to recover the interest of 12% on the 9% bonus which was excess paid for a short duration of 1.3.1987 to 31.12.1989. 8. In the matter of Sayal Mal Bhansali Vs. Judge, Labour Courts, decided on 11.7.1994, the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court, while dealing with the case under Industrial Disputes Act, 4 observed that, recovery of money due from a employer would carry interest. 9. In the matter of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & anr. (2009 DGLS (Soft) 820), the Apex Court was dealing with a case concerning under Railways Act. Giving interpretation to Section 3 and provisions of Section 123(C) of Railways Act, the Apex Court directed to award to be discharged with interest, changing it from 6% to 12%. In that case, the Apex Court observed in para 13 that, neither the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 nor the Railways Act, 1989 make provision for payment of interest on any awarded amount." The Apex Court also observed, "In cases where the Statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the powers of the Court to grant interest can also be referred to from the provisions of Interest Act, 1978 and the Code of Civil Procedure." 10. Reverting to facts of present case, it is apparent, the whereabouts of the employees is a misery and even the Union, the respondent herein, will not be in a position to trace them. The question of identity of the respective eligible employees again warrants resolution. The judgments referred to above, relied on by 5 learned counsel for the Union, indicate the powers are exhausted either by the Division Bench or by the Apex Court sitting in writ. However, the fact situation here again invites attention. The directions are not issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3509/1990. However, it was the executing authority, the Government official, who were simply required to execute the directions in the Writ Petition, applied the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. 11. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner invited my attention to a judgment of this Court, reported in 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 284 (Payal Electronics Vs. Arun Vasant Pawar and another), where the workers claimed over time wages which the employer had not paid during the service. The learned Single Judge has observed in para No.5 as under : "5. As far as the grant of interest at the rate of 15% on the overtime wages is concerned under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and power to grant any interest on the determined and computed amount as due from the employer. The Labour Court's jurisdiction is restricted to the extent of determination and computation of the money due or the benefits which are capable of computation in terms of money on the basis of the existing right of the workman. There is no existing right to get interest on the amount of dues and as an executing Court the Labour Court cannot add anything more than the 6 amount of money due. In my opinion the Labour Court was therefore wrong in awarding interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation of the amount of overtime computed by the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court therefore is quashed and set aside to the extent of grant of interest at the rate of 15% on the amount of overtime wages." 12. In view of the situation, the Government authorities are simply executing authority, could not clamp and direct payment of interest at the rate of 10% to the writ petitioner. Consequently, the order to that extent is quashed. The writ petitioner to deposit the amount of bonus within one month from today to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmednagar, who shall ensure to disburse the amount through channel of the Union and also of the employer to the respective employees. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE fmp/wp6780.09