JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 24.07.2014 passed in W.P.No. 34123 of 2012. 2. The writ petition arose from the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short “CGIT”). The CGIT while considering the petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of monetary benefits pursuant to the award dated 16.6.2005 in I.D.No. 121 of 2003 declined to grant interest under item No. 14 as the same was not awarded under the original award dated 16.6.2005. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant/petitioner preferred the writ petition questioning the refusal of grant of interest as aforestated. The learned Single Judge, having examined all aspects of the matter and also considering the submissions of parties, came to the conclusion that the CGIT was right in holding that unless and until they award a specific relief providing for grant of interest, the Labour Court in the computation petition cannot grant interest. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The instant appeal arises against the said order of the writ court. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this court is that the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(MD)No. 1587 of 2007 [The Special Officer, Arumanai Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Arumanai Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchendur Road, Tirunelveli and others], by order dated 30.11.2011, has granted interest in favour of the workman. 5. The facts are entirely different in the instant case, since the dispute arose from the filing of the petition to compute the monetary benefits on the basis of the award passed by the Labour court. The CGIT could not have expanded the scope of the award, on the basis of which the computation petition was filed. The learned Labour Court had rightly decided that since the award did not direct the payment of interest and as such, in the computation petition, the same could not be awarded. The Writ Court examined the entire aspects and had rightly come to the conclusion that in the computation petition unless the interest is awarded by the Industrial Tribunal, the writ petitioner was not entitled to interest on any amount in the computation petition. 6. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the writ court, warranting interference at this stage. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. 6. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the writ court, warranting interference at this stage. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.