JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is, whether the Labour Court can award interest in proceedings u/s 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') or not? 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Appellant-Petitioner was working as Traffic Controller in S.T. Depot, at Bagasara. On 1.8.1997, a settlement was arrived at and an amount of Rs. 33,617/- was to be paid to the Appellant by the Respondent. The Appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2003. 3. The aforesaid amount under the settlement was not paid to the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant filed a recovery application in the year 2007 u/s 33C(1) of the ID Act. The Labour Court, by its order dated 5.11.2009 allowed the application and directed the Respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 33,617/-, but did not direct payment of any interest due to delay in paying the amount under the settlement which was claimed by the Appellant at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently urged that the amount fell due was not paid to the Appellant in pursuance of the settlement on 1.8.1997 and an order was passed by the Labour Court on 5.11.2009. Therefore, the Appellant was entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in payment of the amount for more than 12 years. For appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to extract Section 33C(1) of the ID Act as below: 33C. Therefore, the Appellant was entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in payment of the amount for more than 12 years. For appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to extract Section 33C(1) of the ID Act as below: 33C. 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 Chapter VA or Chapter VB the workman himself or any other person authorised 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 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. 5. The aforesaid provision authorises the workman to recover the amount from the employer which is due to him under a settlement or an award, provided the application is made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer. Before the Labour Court it has been contended by the Respondents in the written statement that they came to know about the amount due only on 8.1.2007. The amount payable to the Appellant was Rs.45,073/- and out of which, an amount of Rs.23,507/- was paid to the applicant by the Respondent. Therefore, only an amount of Rs. 21,530/- was to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was also mentioned that there was shortage of funds and the moment the fund is received, the amount shall be paid to the Appellant. Therefore, only an amount of Rs. 21,530/- was to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was also mentioned that there was shortage of funds and the moment the fund is received, the amount shall be paid to the Appellant. However, subsequently, the Respondent had informed the Appellant that the total amount to be paid was Rs.58,470/- and the admitted amount which was liable to be paid to the Appellant at the time of passing of the order by the Labour Court was Rs.29,517/- as per the details mentioned in the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.29,517/- within 30 days. 6. We have examined the provision of Section 33C(1) of the ID Act. We do not find that the Labour Court, u/s 33C(1) has been conferred the power to award interest on the amount due. In absence of any statutory provision and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award any interest to the Appellant. Whenever a Legislature intended that the amount due to a workman be paid along with interest to avoid delay, in such a situation, the Legislature always takes care to incorporate such provision with regard to payment of interest in the Statute itself. But, in Section 33C(1) of the ID Act, there is no provision for payment of any interest. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge is perfectly in accordance with law and interest could not be awarded even if the amount is paid after unreasonable delay 7 However, we are of the opinion that if the amount of Rs. 29,517/- has not yet been paid to the Appellant by the Respondent, it shall be paid to the Appellant within a period of two months from today. 8 Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.