JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated May 22, 2009 is aggrieved by a decision of the Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands dated February 19,2009, Annexure P14 at p.74. 2. THE decision has been given in an application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in 1993. The application was registered as I.D.(L.C) Case No, 9/1993, The respondent claimed that under the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the members of the union were entitled to "arrears of overtime allowance for the period January 1, 1986 to November 30, 1990 ." By a decision dated October 21, 1994, Annexure P3 at p.32, the labour Court allowed the application holding that the members of the union were "entitled to the arrears of overtime allowance as per the revised scale of pay from January 1, 1986 to November 30, 1990", and saying: "the amount of such arrear claim of the individual workman being determined and calculated by the respective offices of the second party within a reasonable period." 3. QUESTIONING the decision of the labour Court dated October 21, 1994 the petitioner moved CO. No. 144(W)/1996 under Article 226. By an order dated May 27,1997, Annexure P4 at p.37, the petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the members of has no power to order interest on amount due, unless it is an integral part thereof. Cases referred to: Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Shri Siri Kishan (1996) LIC 1510 (dissented from)(Paras 7, 14) Mantri Khadi Mandir v. Labour Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (1996) Lab IC 2713 (dissented from) (Paras 7, 15) Union of India v. Ajaib Singh AIR 1996 SC 270 (Para 15) the union overtime allowance arrears with interest and costs. By an order dated June 11, 1998, Annexure P5 at p.43, in F.M.A.T. No. 12/1997 the division bench rejected the plea that the application was not maintainable, but set aside the order of the single Bench and remanded the matter to the labour Court for completing "the process under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947." The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated January 17, 2007. 4. 4. UNDER the circumstances, the labour Court appointed a commissioner presumably under Section 33-C(3), and finally, accepting the amount determined by the commissioner gave the impugned decision holding and saying as follows: "..... the First Party Members, who have initiated the case being represented by the General Secretary, State Transport Employees Union is hereby entitled to get the arrear of overtime allowances covering the period from January 1986 to November 1990, as per calculated rate submitted by Second Party, which shall be a part of this Award and of course, due to such prolonged litigation the respective amount shall be disbursed by the Second Party to relevant employees with interest to be calculated at the rate of 5% per annum w.e.f. January 17, 2007 (i.e. the date of disposal of the Civil Appeal No. 2195/2001) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India till this date of Award, and the Second Party shall pay the same only within two months from this date of Award, failing which, the Second Party shall satisfy the Award to the relevant employees, only connected with the proceeding, with further interest to be calculated at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. this date of Award till the date of final disbursement." The petitioner's grievance is limited to the labour Court's directions regarding interest on the amount determined by the commissioner. According to Mr. Ray, counsel for the petitioner, the directions are without jurisdiction. 5. RELYING on the decision in Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Shri Siri Kishan and Another (1996) Lab IC 1510 and Mantri Khadi: Mandir v. Labour Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner and Others, (1996) Lab IC 2713, Mr. Bahadur, the respondent, has argued that on the facts of the case the tribunal was justified in ordering the petitioner to pay the determined: amount of overtime allowance arrears with interest. 6. THE sole question is whether the labour Court could order the petitioner to pay interest on the amount of overtime allowance arrears determined by the commissioner. The provisions of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not empower the labour Court to order an employer to pay his workman the amount found due. 6. THE sole question is whether the labour Court could order the petitioner to pay interest on the amount of overtime allowance arrears determined by the commissioner. The provisions of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not empower the labour Court to order an employer to pay his workman the amount found due. Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C provides that where a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may be decided by the labour Court. 7. SUB-section (3) of Section 33-C empowers the labour Court to appoint a commissioner to compute the money value of the benefit, and has made it its duty to determine the amount after considering the report of the commissioner and other circumstances of the case. SUB-section (4) provides that the labour Court shall forward its decision to the appropriate Government, and that any amount found due by the labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1). 8. UNDER the circumstances, the labour Court was only to determine the amount of money due to the members of the union on account of overtime allowance arrears payable for the period from January 1, 1986 to November 30, 1990. Admittedly, the commissioner appointed by it calculated the payable amount the breakdown whereof does not include any amount on account of interest on any principal amount. The calculation of the commissioner has been accepted by the labour Court, and hence it cannot be said that any amount in excess of the amount calculated by the commissioner has been found due by the labour Court on account of overtime allowance arrears for the period. Nothing entitled the members of the union to interest on the money payable on account of overtime allowance arrears, for the period in question; and hence the labour Court could not decide their entitlement to interest and order the petitioner to pay it. In my opinion, by the labour Court had no jurisdiction and power to give the impugned directions in the respondent's Section 33-C(2) application. 9. MR. In my opinion, by the labour Court had no jurisdiction and power to give the impugned directions in the respondent's Section 33-C(2) application. 9. MR. Bahadur, however, is right in saying that in both the decisions he has relied on the respective High Courts upheld the respective Section 33-C(2) decisions of the respective labour Courts granting the workmen interest on the amount found due. But I am unable to persuade myself into accepting the proposition of law that even though the provisions of Section 33-C do not empower the labour Court to order an employer to pay his workman interest on the amount found due, in a fit case it can make an order for the purpose. 10. IN the case reported at Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Shri Siri Kishan and Another (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the labour Court applying the principle that the workman fighting for a long period had been justifiably compensated by the labour Court by granting interest on the amount found due. With due respect, I am unable to agree with the proposition. In the case reported at Mantri Khadi Mandir v. Labour Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner and Others, (supra), the Rajasthan High Court upheld the decision of the labour Court granting interest relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Ajaib Singh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 270 : (1995) 6 SCC 323 . That was a case under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.1 am, therefore, unable to accept the decision as an authority for the proposition that the labour Court is empowered to grant a workman applying under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 interest on the amount found due even though no element of interest is a part of the money due. 11. I am, therefore, of the view that the labour Court giving decision in an application under Section 33-C(2) does not possess any power to order the employer to pay interest on any amount. If interest is an integral part of the amount of money due then the labour Court of course will be within its jurisdiction to determine the amount due taking into consideration the element of interest. If interest is an integral part of the amount of money due then the labour Court of course will be within its jurisdiction to determine the amount due taking into consideration the element of interest. But an interest element cannot be made a part of the determined amount, if interest does not automatically become a part of the unpaid amount of money. I am, therefore, of the view that the labour Court directing the petitioner to pay interest on the determined amount, committed an error of jurisdiction. 12. FOR these reasons, I allow the petition and set aside the impugned directions of the labour Court regarding interest on the amount found due. No costs. Certified xerox according to law.