JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J.(Oral):- The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 20.07.1990 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, holding the respondent No.1-Workman to be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.35,262/- from the petitioner. The said order of the Labour Commissioner is stated to have been passed on an application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33(C)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the basis of the order dated 20.07.1990, the learned Labour Commissioner had requested the Collector, Faridabad, to recover the said amount from the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The order to the said effect dated 08.08.1990 is enclosed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. 2. The first grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without any notice to the writ petitioner. The pleadings in the regard are contained in Paras 6 & 7 of the writ petition. In Para 7, the petitioner has alleged lack of any hearing and not lack of any notice to him. That apart, the submissions made in para 7 have been denied by the respondent-workman in the reply filed. No specific stand in this regard has been taken by the Labour Commissioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is unable to hold that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the writ petitioner. The absence of hearing complained of in para 7 of the writ petition could very well be a hearing after issuance of notice. 3. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the amount of Rs.35,262/- awarded includes a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of interest claimed by the workman at the rate of 18% per annum. Referring to the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.23,621/- to the workman on 01.12.1989 as back wages. 4. In reply, the workman has virtually admitted receipt of the said amount of Rs.23,621/-. The necessary averments in this regard are contained in para 9 of the reply of the workman. 5. 4. In reply, the workman has virtually admitted receipt of the said amount of Rs.23,621/-. The necessary averments in this regard are contained in para 9 of the reply of the workman. 5. From the above discussions, it transpires that the workman has already received the principal dues payable to him on account of back wages and the amount that survives for consideration is the interest amount as claimed by the workman. A reading of the award, out of which, the instant matter has arisen, (Annexure P-1), goes to show that what was awarded by the learned Labour Commissioner is the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The award does not stipulate payment of any interest on the back wages. 6. The jurisdiction vested by Section 33(C)(i) relates to claims of money following an award by the industrial adjudicator. The power vested by the aforesaid Section has to be exercised within the four corners thereof, namely, to order for payment of what is due under an award. In the present case, as already noticed, payment of interest on back wages did not form a part of the award of the Labour Court. In such a situation, it will be difficult to comprehend how the Labour Commissioner could have exercised jurisdiction to award interest to the workman. The present controversy having revolved around the amount due on account of interest, the Court will have to hold that the order of the learned Labour Commissioner, insofar as interest is concerned, is beyond the powers vested in him under Section 33(C)(i) of the Act. The said order, to the extent of the interest awarded, therefore, stands interfered with. 7. Writ petition consequently is allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. ----------0K.0B.------------