Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – Late Shri Karnidan was an employee of Khadi Mandir, Bikaner. By order dated 29.09.72, his services were terminated and on an industrial dispute being raised, the matter was referred for consideration by the Labour Court. On 29.01.75, an award was passed by the Labour Court whereunder the termination of services of Shri Karnidan was held to be illegal and invalid and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with all back- wages. The award was sent for publication. While passing the award, no interest was directed to be paid. The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1360/76. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Late Shri Karnidan moved an appli- cation under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short, to be called `the Act hereinafter) claiming an amount of Rs. 92,065/- on the ground that inspite of the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, he was neither reinstated nor was paid back-wages. The petitioner entered appearance before the Labour Court and filed reply contending that from 01.10.72 late Shri Karnidan was engaged in a business of commission agent and thus was gainfully employed and, therefore, not entitled for back-wages. It is also contended that he was asked to join the duties on various occasion but he has wilfully refu- sed to join the duties which tantamounts to misconduct and as he has not joined the duties of his own he is not entitled to salary for the period he has claimed right from 29.09.72. The Labour Court after appreciation of the evidence on record has arrived at the finding that late Shri Karnidan was not gainfully employed and that he has not refused to join the duties till 09.05.84 and, therefore, he was entitled to all service benefits upto that period. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that after 09.05.84, Shri Karnidan is not willing to join duties and, therefore, no wages could be paid to him after that period and passed the award of Rs. 52,544/- with 12 per cent interest. (2). It may be recorded that during the pedency of the proceedings before the Labour Court Shri Karnidan dies on 21.02.85 and thereafter his wife also died. The present respondents No. 2 to 5 are his son and daughters. 52,544/- with 12 per cent interest. (2). It may be recorded that during the pedency of the proceedings before the Labour Court Shri Karnidan dies on 21.02.85 and thereafter his wife also died. The present respondents No. 2 to 5 are his son and daughters. The only question raised in this petition is that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33-C (2) of the Act the Labour Court has no autho- rity to grant interest on the amount directed to be paid to the claimants. In the absence of specific powers no interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum could have been granted by the Labour Court. (3). The facts revealed that Karnidans services were terminated by the petitioner Board by order dated 29th September, 1972. He was required to approach the Labour Court and the Labour Court set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court which was ultimately dismissed. But, still the petitioner has neither reinstated Karnidan nor paid him back wages and he was forced to move application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act for enforcement of the award passed by the Labour Court on 21.02.85. The defence of the petitioner to oppose that application was that Karnidan was gainfully employed and has refused employment although it was offered to him. The Labour Court has found this plea not to be correct. It has been held that before 09.05.84 Karnidan was neither gainfully employed nor refu- sed employment. It so happened that during the pendency of the petition Karnidan died and his wife has also died. Under the circumstances, while granting award of Rs. 52,544/- the Labour Court also directed for payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. This appears to have been done to meet the ends of justice. (4). It appears that the best part of Karnidans life was spent in litigation to get the illegal order of termination set aside. When ultimately he succeeded in that he was denied the fruits of the award passed in his favour and a false plea was taken that he has refused employment and was gainfully employed else where to deny reinstatement and back wages to him. When ultimately he succeeded in that he was denied the fruits of the award passed in his favour and a false plea was taken that he has refused employment and was gainfully employed else where to deny reinstatement and back wages to him. As a result thereof, he was forced to take recourse again to the Court of law and during the pendency of subsequent litigation he died leaving all the efforts made by him gone in vain. He could not enjoy the fruits of the order of the Court passed in his favour. His wife also died during the pendency of the litigation. It is now his legal representatives who are pursuing the litigation. (5). In Union of India & Others vs. Ajit Singh (1), it has been observed by the Supreme Court while considering the fact whether interest could have been awarded although there was no provision in the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for grant of interest, and, it has been held that interest can be awarded, although there is no provision, under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. But, in the absence of special circumstances such award of interest cannot be justified when there is no provision for grant of interest. (6). From the facts narrated above, it is clearly established that circumstances do exist in this case where grant of interest is justiciable, although Section 33-C (2) of the Act does not specifically empower the authority to grant interest. Interest of justice is of paramount consideration to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India. The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and shall not be exercised to set at naught the decision arrived at by the Court subordinate, which tends to achieve the ends of justice. The Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 does not act as appellate or revisionary Court. The jurisdiction is supplemental to law and is based on principles of justice rather than pure appli- cation of law. Under the extraordinary jurisdiction the equities weigh as much. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with th order passed by the Court below. (7). The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. The jurisdiction is supplemental to law and is based on principles of justice rather than pure appli- cation of law. Under the extraordinary jurisdiction the equities weigh as much. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with th order passed by the Court below. (7). The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount in the Labour Court, Bikaner with one month from the date of this order alongwith the cost failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of order of the Labour Court on the amount of interest due against the petitioner.