R. S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE application No. 10613 filed on 5th May, 1987 is under consideration, which seeks stay of the order dated 9th April, 1987 of the Labour Court II, Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 98 of 1985. ( 2 ) THE petition was filed on 23rd November, 1984 and was admitted on 1st January, 1985 when notices were issued on the stay application and ad interim order was not granted against the award dated 5th June 1984 in Adjudication Case No. 90 of 1983 Annexure 6 to the petition. The issue in the award was payment to be made to H. N. Mishra, Senior Clerk, upon findings in the award that he had worked as Incharge Price Control. The award gave the liberty to the employer to make a selection on this post and until it is made this workman was entitled to the emoluments and salary as on the post of Incharge Price Control. ( 3 ) AS the benefits under the award did not accrue to the workman, he moved an application under section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was numbered as Misc. Case No. 97 of 1985. The Labour Court computed the benefits in terms of money and delivered its order on 9th april, 1987 that the workman was entitled to the amounts mentioned in this order. It is against this order of the Labour Court on the application of the workman under Section 33c (2) that this miscellaneous Application No. 10613 was filed by the employer Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur that the order of the Labour Court dated 9th April, 1987 be stayed. ( 4 ) IN fact if the employer aforesaid could obtain an ad interim order in writ petition, the consequential order under Section 33c (2) would not have been passed. The other aspect, is that the award not having been stayed, the Labour Court was obliged to act on the application of the workman under Section 33c (2) and compute the benefits under the award in terms of money. This was done. ( 5 ) ON record, the workman made out a prima facie case that he is entitled to monetary benefits under the award. ( 6 ) BUT, if the entire money is made available to the workman the possibility is that the petition may become infructous. This was done. ( 5 ) ON record, the workman made out a prima facie case that he is entitled to monetary benefits under the award. ( 6 ) BUT, if the entire money is made available to the workman the possibility is that the petition may become infructous. On the other hand it would not be equitable to absolutely deny the workman of any advantage he may have in receiving under the award, when the High Court was not inclined to grant any interim order. ( 7 ) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner and for the workman, this Court considers it in the interest of justice and equitable that while the employer may retain the monetary benefits, which may have been declared on the application of the workman under Section 33c (2) as from the date of the order passed on 9th April, 1987, the amount will be retained by the employer. Thereafter he shall add simple interest @10% p. a. from the date of the order until June 1990. Then during this month the employer shall deposit this amount in one of the monthly income schemes of a nationalised bank or a public finance institution like the Unit Trust of India. The interest accrued under this scheme shall go to the workman and the principal amount shall be subject to the final orders of this Court. Thus, the workman shall have the monthly income on benefits which have been computed in terms of money and later on if the petition is allowed this amount will go the workman. Should the petition be dismissed the amount will be retained by the employer. ( 8 ) THUS the application is decided accordingly. .