JUDGMENT : Devendra Pratap Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against an order dated 3.11.2011 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 22/2007, 23/2007, 09/2008, 27/2008, 3/2009, 36/2009 and 42 of 2009 passed by the labour court, Varanasi by which it has awarded interest on the alleged delayed payment of retrenchment compensation. 2. It appears that the petitioner sugar mill closed down on 15.4.2003 and the services of the workmen were retrenched. However, the retrenchment dues and other statutory dues were not paid and therefore, the workmen preferred the aforesaid miscellaneous cases u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court, Varanasi. All the applications were heard and disposed off together. 3. The labour court found that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner employers made any effort to pay the retrenchment compensation etc. to the workmen and only when the case was lodged that the amounts were paid in 2008 and therefore, they are entitled to 10% interest. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the labour court has erred in law in holding that no documents were filed to show that amounts were tendered at the time of closure with the closure notice. It is also urged that the claim for interest was raised after the payment had been made only by filing rejoinder affidavit. 5. A perusal of the record shows that a clear cut case was set up by the petitioner that retrenchment notices dated 15.4.2003 and 16.4.2003 were duly sought to be served on the workmen through registered notice but as it was not accepted and returned, newspaper publication was issued on 12.7.2003 asking all the workmen, including the respondents to report at the office and take their respective cheques but it appears none of the respondents appeared and took up the offer. Therefore, the finding of the labour court to that effect was vitiated. 6. A perusal of the order shows that the claim for interest was raised only by filing a rejoinder affidavit after the payments had been made and therefore, also there was no occasion for the employer to have filed rebuttal thereafter. 7. For both these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. 6. A perusal of the order shows that the claim for interest was raised only by filing a rejoinder affidavit after the payments had been made and therefore, also there was no occasion for the employer to have filed rebuttal thereafter. 7. For both these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.11.2011 is hereby quashed and any amount deposited under the interim order of this court shall be refunded to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.