JUDGMENT Aftab Alam & P. K. Sarin, JJ. 1. An award of the labour court by which the employer is directed to pay, in lieu of reinstatement, Rs. 55,000/- to the concerned workman comes under challenge in these two writ petitions. C.W.J.C. No. 335/91 has been filed by the Management of Bhagalpur Zila Khadi Gramodyog Sangh making the grievance that the aforesaid amount of compensation was too high and excessive, C.W.J.C. No 4491/91 has been filed by the concerned workman making the grievance that on the findings recorded by the labour court he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and, in any event, the compensation amount was too little and meager. These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. The basic facts which are not in dispute and which must be taken into account in order to dispose of these two writ petitions can be stated as follows. The concerned workman was appointed by the Khadi Gramodyog Sangh, Muzaffarpur on July 28, 1958 on a monthly salary of Rs. 60/-. He was dismissed from service on 25.7.1977. At the time of his dismissal, his age was around 46 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 213/-. The dismissal of the workman gave rise to an industrial dispute. The appropriate government, vide notification dated 18.10.1978, referred the dispute, in terms of section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication before the labour court where it was registered as reference case no. 28/78. The labour court gave its award on 26.12.1984. In that award the labour court found that the petitioner's dismissal from service was not proper and justified and held him entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. It, accordingly, gave its award. 3. That award, at the instance of the employer, came under challenge before this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2074/85. It appears that at the stage of admission of the aforesaid writ petition, the operation of the award was stayed and, consequently, the employer was directed to pay to the concerned workman his wages at the rate of the last pay drawn by him as provided under section 17B of the Act. According to the management, it paid to the concerned workman, in terms of the interim direction, a sum of Rs. 6393/- till that writ application was finally disposed of by this court. According to the management, it paid to the concerned workman, in terms of the interim direction, a sum of Rs. 6393/- till that writ application was finally disposed of by this court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 3.11.1987 by a learned Single Judge of this court. In that judgment this court did not interfere with the labour court's finding that the dismissal of the concerned workman was not proper and justified but allowed the petition to a limited extent on the plea that the labour court had directed reinstatement with back wages without first considering the desirability of awarding some compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, the award of the labour court was set aside to that extent and the matter was remanded back to the labour court to reconsider the question whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation in lieu of reinstatement could be a more proper award. 4. The labour court on a reconsideration of the matter and after hearing the parties gave its award on September 22, 1990 wherein, as stated above, II directed that the concerned workman be paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The award of the labour court was pronounced on 11.12.1990 and thus, in terms of section 17 A of the Act it became enforceable on January 11, 1991 on the expiry of 30 days, from the date of its pronouncement. 5. The writ petition at the instance of the employer was filed in this court on 14.1.1991, that is to say, after the award had already become enforceable in the eye of law. It is further to be noted that this court never passed any order staying the operation of the award during the period this writ petition has remained pending here for about five years. Even then it is an admitted position that the workman has not been paid a single paisa in terms of the award coming under challenge in this petition. The employer, i.e. the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 335/91 is thus, on its own showing guilty of committing breach of a legally enforceable award and is liable to punishment under section 29 of the Act. The employer, i.e. the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 335/91 is thus, on its own showing guilty of committing breach of a legally enforceable award and is liable to punishment under section 29 of the Act. It is, another matter that no prosecution in this case was launched on account of the bar of section 34 of the Act which prohibits the taking of cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate government. It should not have been unjustified on our part to refuse to entertain the petition on behalf of the employer (C.W.J.C. No. 335/91) on this score alone but we find that the employer's challenge to the quantum of compensation is also otherwise devoid of any merit. 6. The labour court had calculated the amount of compensation in paragraph - 23 of the award which is as follows: "In this case the back wages from the date of disengagement from service 25.7.77 to the date of award 26th Dec., 1984 @ 213.10 per month the last pay drawn comes to Rs. 18,965.90 besides fixation. The workman served the management from 28th June, 1958. Till Dec., 1977, one month salary for every year of service will be Rs. 4,262.00. The services of the workman was dispensed with at the age of about 46 years. The age of retirement as per rules of the Sangh is 65 years. Thus, if not disengaged the workman, would have served for 19 years more. The workman has been disengaged in a age when he cannot get any employment of gain and thus leaving deprived of any future prospect and obtain-ability of alternative employment. To my mind one thousand compensation for every year of deprivation would be proper which comes to Rs. 19,000/-. Keeping the above aspect in view besides the amount of fixation in computation of back wages, the sufferings of the workman and the cost incurred by him in litigation, a compensation of Rs. 55,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages will meet the ends of justice. The amount is quite within the capacity of the management to pay." Having thus made the calculation the labour court has arrived at a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. 7. We have noted above that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.7.1977 i.e. about 15 years ago. The amount is quite within the capacity of the management to pay." Having thus made the calculation the labour court has arrived at a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. 7. We have noted above that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.7.1977 i.e. about 15 years ago. During this period he has fought two rounds of litigation before the labour court and before this court. Taking an overall view of the case we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 55,000/- by way of compensation for the back wages and in lieu of reinstatement cannot by any reasoning to be described as excessive or high and if anything, it is rather on the lower side. 8. Mr. Jai Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner (C.W.J.C. No. 335/91) submitted that the labour court erred in determining the compensation and by adding up one month's salary for every year of service and submitted that under the Gratuity Act the gratuity payable to a workman on the termination of his service was calculated only at the rate of 15 days pay for every completed year of service. We find no substance in the submission. First, the amount involved on this score comes only to Rs. 4262.00 and secondly, the labour court is not computing the gratuity payable to the workman but has taken it into account as a factor to determine the total compensation payable to petitioner. We find that there is no unreasonableness in adopting this mode. 9. Mr. Jai Krishna then submitted that in any view of the matter, the labour court should have deducted a sum of Rs. 6393/- paid by the employer to the workman during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. We are not inclined to entertain this submission also. As stated earlier we are of the view that taking an overall view of this case the compensation amount of Rs. 55,000/- is modestly reasonable. Moreover the sum of Rs. 6393/- was paid by the employer in terms of the conditional order of stay passed by this court in the earlier writ petition as provided under section 178 of the Act and in our view the labour court rightly did not take it into reckoning. 10. Mr. 55,000/- is modestly reasonable. Moreover the sum of Rs. 6393/- was paid by the employer in terms of the conditional order of stay passed by this court in the earlier writ petition as provided under section 178 of the Act and in our view the labour court rightly did not take it into reckoning. 10. Mr. Jai Krishna learned counsel in support of his contentions relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of O.P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 111 seeking support from that decision Mr. Jai Krishna contended that an amount equivalent to 3.33 years salary (including the admissible allowances on the basis of the last pay drawn) should be a reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In our view, the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the case in hand. That case related to a 'gold collar' employee occupying a high and managerial position in a big Public Sector Company; in the case in hand we are dealing with a workman who was dismissed from service on 25.7.1977 when he received a paltry sum of Rs. 213/- as his monthly wages. As stated earlier the compensation amount in this case is too modest to bear any reduction. 11. What is more, as noted above, the award became enforceable on 11.1.1991 and on that date the concerned workman was entitled to receive the awarded money but the employer illegally withheld payment committing breach of the award. In our opinion therefore, the least that the employer owes to the workman is to pay interest on the compensation amount. It is, accordingly, directed that the employer shall pay to the workman the awarded amount (Rs. 55,000/-) alongwith simple interest @ 15% from January 11, 1991 till the actual date of payment. The aforesaid amount must be paid to the workman by February 15, 1995, failing which the State Government, (respondent no. 1) is directed to take steps for realization of the money from the employer in terms of section 33C (1) of the Act. 55,000/-) alongwith simple interest @ 15% from January 11, 1991 till the actual date of payment. The aforesaid amount must be paid to the workman by February 15, 1995, failing which the State Government, (respondent no. 1) is directed to take steps for realization of the money from the employer in terms of section 33C (1) of the Act. We further wish to observe that the authorities of the State Government will be failing in the discharge of their statutory duties if a prosecution is not launched against the employer under section 29 of the Act in case of non-payment of the money by the date as directed by this court. 12. Coming now to the writ petition at the instance of the concerned workman (C.W.J.C. No. 4491/91) we are of the opinion that in view of the direction given above, no further order(s) need be passed in this case. For the sake of record, however, it is to be noted that Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel, sought to assail the award and submitted that the labour court had committed an error in not directing reinstatement but only allowing Rs. 55,000/- as compensation in lieu thereof. In our opinion, section 11 A of the Act confers adequate discretion on the labour court to appropriately mould the relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any perversity in the order of the labour court in this regard to warrant any interference by this court. 13. As regard, the contention that the compensation amount was too little and meagre, we are of the opinion that the compensation money alongwith interest would now add upto around 90,000/- and that should be adequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The two writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of with the above directions and observations.