Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in WP No.38895/2002 viz., the Management of Tiruvarur Consumer Co-operative Wholesale stores, rep. by its Special Officer, Tiruvarur, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of R-2/Labour Court with reference to the order dated 19.06.2002, passed by it in Claim Petition No.84 of 1999, awarding a sum of Rs.1,73,628/- payable to the first respondent/employee towards backwages and bonus by the petitioner along with costs of Rs.300/-, and to quash the said order. “The first respondent/employee S.Vijayakumar has filed W.P. No.34909 of 2003 for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the R2/Labour Court pertaining to the order dated 19.06.2002 passed in the aforesaid claim petition and to quash the said order only to an extent of disallowing the interest portion of Rs.1,30,222.85 alone as claimed by the petitioner and to further direct the Management/first respondent to pay the said sum towards interest to him.” 2. Both the interconnected writ petitions challenging the very same impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent/Labour Court are given joint disposal by this Common Order. 3. Facts which led to filing of the present writ petitions by the Management as well as the Employee are narrated in brief hereunder, The employee/petitioner in W.P. No.34909 of 2003 joined the services of the Society (petitioner in W.P. No.38895 of 2002) in the year 1976 and, on 23.03.1984, he was placed under suspension alleging misconduct and consequently, removed from service on 3.12.1985. The order of removal was challenged by the employee before the I Additional Labour Court, Madras, by filing I.D. No.415 of 1986 and on 27.12.1989, the order of removal was set aside by the Labour Court holding that none of the 5 charges framed against the employee was proved and consequently, the Society was directed to reinstate the employee in service with all backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, etc. Writ petition No.3021 of 1991 filed by the Management questioning the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by this Court on 07.12.2003. Thereafter, the employee/petitioner filed the claim petition before the 2nd respondent/Labour Court, Cuddalore, claiming a sum of Rs.3,05,298.70 towards arrears of balance of backwages and bonus along with interest @ 18% . Writ petition No.3021 of 1991 filed by the Management questioning the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by this Court on 07.12.2003. Thereafter, the employee/petitioner filed the claim petition before the 2nd respondent/Labour Court, Cuddalore, claiming a sum of Rs.3,05,298.70 towards arrears of balance of backwages and bonus along with interest @ 18% . By the impugned order, R-2 allowed the claim petition and directed the Society to pay to the employee a sum of Rs.1,73,638/- along with costs of Rs.300/-. While the petitioner/Society seeks to quash the said order in its entirety, the employee feeling aggrieved that his claim for interest of Rs.1,30,222.85 was unjustly disallowed by the 2nd respondent, questions the impugned order only to that limited extent. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management, by pointing out that even during the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.3021 of 1991 filed by the Management questioning the order of reinstatement passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Madras, a sum of Rs.20,000/-was deposited to the credit of I.D. No.415 of 1986 and in the present proceedings, the conditional order dated 21.10.2002, passed in WPMP No.58027 of 2002 in W.P. No.38895 of 2002, directing the management to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of Claim Petition No.84/99 has also been complied with, would submit that he is restricting his argument only with reference to the interest aspect which has been rightly dealt with by the R2/Labour Court as there is no legal provision mandating the management to pay interest on the amount awarded. Even otherwise, according to him, inasmuch as the legal process at various levels was being set in motion by either side and thereby, receipt of the award amount by the employee got prolonged, there is no justification for him now to insist upon interest, and since his claim was rightly considered and the amount awarded being correct, his writ petition may be straight away rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employee submitted that the Award was passed way back in the year 2002 and till date, the petitioner could not receive the money and even without reference to any legal provision, considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner, interest as sought for may be awarded. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side. In my considered opinion, there is no substance at all in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/employee, for, the fact remains that even during 2003, the Management had complied with the conditional order passed by this Court on 21.10.2002 in W.P.M.P. No.58027 of 2002 by depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to the credit of the claim petition, and even prior to that, as per the order passed in W.P.M.P. No.4083 of 1992 in W.P. No.3021 of 1991, a sum of Rs.20,000/-was deposited to the credit of the I.D. As the direction by this court on 19.09.2003 issued in WPMP No.58027 of 2002 is specific that the amount should be deposited as 'fixed deposit' in a local State Bank of India Branch for a period of three years and thereafter renewed periodically till the disposal of the writ petition with permission to the employee to withdraw the interest accrued from the deposit once in six months, there is no substance in the claim of the employee that he is aggrieved by non-receipt of the award amount till date. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, since both sides were pursuing further legal course available to them under law, the money could not reach the hands of the employee, however, major portion of it was lying in the Bank as fixed deposit. Thus, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet if a direction is issued to the management to pay the balance of the award amount after deducting Rs.1,20,000/-already deposited, by way of a Demand Draft to be handed over to the petitioner/employee within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with an observation that any default in handing over the D.D. within the time stipulated would automatically render the petitioner/management liable to pay the balance sum with interest @ 12%. 7. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are dismissed with the above direction to the Management. As regards the deposit made already, the petitioner/employee is permitted to withdraw whatever sum that is lying in deposit to the credit of I.D. No.415 of 1986/Claim Petition No.84 of 1999 on the file of the labour courts concerned by making out necessary Application on the strength of this Order. No costs.