Order The petitioner, namely, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union representing the workman has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction upon the respondent-BCCI for implementation of the award dated 31st March, 1992 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 179 of 1990. By the said award the workman have been given the benefit of departmentalization from 27.8.1990 and payment of wages as per N.C.W.A. IV. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that although in similar circumstances the respondent-BCCI implemented the award but they are not ready to implement the award in respect of the petitioner. 2. Mr. M. M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-BCCI submits that the Management challenged the award by filing a writ petition which was dismissed and thereafter the Management filed Special leave Petition before the Supreme Court. However, Mr. M. M. Banerjee is not in a position to say whether the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court has yet been disposed of or not. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 the Assistant Labour Commissioner it is stated that when the management failed to implement the award the petitioner-Union vide letter dated 7.8.1992 informed the office about non-implementation of the award. Accordingly the Management was directed vide letter dated 21.12.1992 to implement the award. When the award was not implemented the matter for launching prosecution was proceeded and finally complaint was filed against the Management-BCCL for non-implementation of the award in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. Admittedly the award was passed in 1992 and the workman till date have not received the benefit under the award inasmuch as neither the workmen have been reinstated in service nor have been paid benefits. 5. Mr. S. K. Laik learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in the Case of T.N. State Transport Corporation... Appellant vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam.... Respondent 2001, Vol. 9 SCC 99, submitted that writ application under Article 226 is maintainable and this court may issue necessary directions for implementation of the award. 6. The consequences of non-implementation of the award has been provided in Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under: "29. Appellant vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam.... Respondent 2001, Vol. 9 SCC 99, submitted that writ application under Article 226 is maintainable and this court may issue necessary directions for implementation of the award. 6. The consequences of non-implementation of the award has been provided in Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under: "29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award.-Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both, and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realized from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach]." 7. If the award for reinstatement in service without monetary benefits with retrospective effect is not implemented by the employer, the petitioner has a right to claim all the benefits under the award by filing application under Section 33(c) of the said Act which is quoted here-in-below:- "33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of chaper V-A or Chaper V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, If the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period." 8. As noticed above a prosecution has already been launched against the Management and the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Mr. M. M. Banerjee learned counsel appearing for the Management has admitted that the implementation of the award has not been stayed either by the Supreme Court or any court of law. In that view of the matter, if still the award has not been implemented by the Respondent-BCCL, the Magistrate before whom the criminal case was launched for non-implementation of the award and is still pending, shall immediately proceed with the said case and dispose of the same in accordance with law within two months from today. The Union or the concerned workmen either jointly and severally are entitled to claim all the benefits under the award by filing the appropriate application under Section 33 (c) of the said Act. The Union or the concerned workmen either jointly and severally are entitled to claim all the benefits under the award by filing the appropriate application under Section 33 (c) of the said Act. The award was passed in 1992 and for about 10 years the benefits of the award has not been given to the concerned workman by the Management although there is no stay of the implementation of the award. 9. In my opinion, while deciding the application if filed by the workman under Section 33(c) claiming benefits under the award, the workman may also be entitled to claim interest on the said benefits which was payable to them pursuant to the passing of the award in 1992. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.