JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 6th June, 2013 in W.P. 6255(W) of 2013 at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. 2. Let us now consider the legality of the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 3. The service of the private respondent no.3 was terminated with effect from 17th April, 2003. The legality of such termination of service of the private respondent was tested by the Learned Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in an industrial dispute reference case being Case No. VIII-10/2006. The Learned Tribunal ultimately decided the said proceeding in favour of the private respondent by holding that the termination of service of the private respondent was illegal inasmuch as it was made without observing the formalities laid down in the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Learned Tribunal found that no enquiry over the allegations was held by the employer before terminating the service of the private respondent. Accordingly, the Learned Tribunal directed that the workman/private respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 4. Subsequently the private respondent no.3 filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the amount of money payable to him during the period when he was kept out of employment due to wrongful termination of his service for a period of 44 months i.e. from April 2003 to November 2006. The said proceeding was registered as Case No. Comp. 56 of 2006. The Learned Labour Court after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them held that the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 3346/- per month for the claim period, VDA (Variable Dearness Allowance) and Bonus for 8 months in the said proceeding. 5. Since how much was admissible to the private respondent on account of VDA and bonus for 8 months have not been quantified by the Learned Labour Court, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant (employer) challenges the legality of the said order of the Learned Labour Court. 6. Mr. 5. Since how much was admissible to the private respondent on account of VDA and bonus for 8 months have not been quantified by the Learned Labour Court, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant (employer) challenges the legality of the said order of the Learned Labour Court. 6. Mr. Majumder further submits that the Learned Labour Court being an Executing Court was not justified in awarding interest @10% per annum over the amount payable to the private respondent no.3 in the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as, such relief for payment of interest was not awarded in the original award passed by the Learned Tribunal reinstating the private respondent in service with back wages and consequential benefits. 7. We find that in the said proceedings, the Learned Labour Court held that the applicant was entitled to get Rs. 2,59,784/- from the writ petitioner/appellant as his admissible dues for the claim period along with interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of this proceeding till the date of actual payment. 8. The said order was practically maintained by the Writ Court, however, with some modification. That part of the order of the Learned Labour Court whereby interest was directed to be paid was set aside by the Learned Writ Court, but at the same time, we find from the impugned order that the Learned Trial Judge, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, granted simple interest @10% per annum to the private respondent no.3 with effect from the date he initiated the said proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 till actual payment is made. 9. The legality of the said order is under challenge before us. 10. We have heard the learned advocates of the parties. We have considered the materials on record. 11. We find that the witness of the appellant-company viz., OPW No.1 admitted in his cross-examination that VDA (Variable Dearness Allowance) was paid to the private respondent up to the date of termination of his service. Thus liability of the Company to pay VDA to the private respondent was not disputed by the appellant-company. 12. The pay slip which is annexed to the stay application at page 50 thereof shows that a sum of Rs. Thus liability of the Company to pay VDA to the private respondent was not disputed by the appellant-company. 12. The pay slip which is annexed to the stay application at page 50 thereof shows that a sum of Rs. 2320/- was paid to him on account of V.D.A. Thus if we add the said amount of V.D.A. to the salary including other allowances of the private respondent i.e. Rs. 3346/-, then the net amount payable to the private respondent will be Rs. 5666.40 paisa per month. The private respondent was out of employment for 44 months due to wrongful termination of his service. Thus, if the sum of Rs. 5666/- is multiplied by 44, then the net amount of Rs. 2,49,304 was payable to him on account of his salary and other allowance including V.D.A. In addition to that the private respondent was entitled to bonus for eight months. 13. We are informed by the learned advocates of the parties that a sum of Rs. 3777/- was payable to the private respondent on account of eight months' bonus. Thus, if we add this sum of Rs. 3777/- to the other amount admissible to him as we have mentioned above i.e. Rs. 2,49,304/-, then the net amount payable to the private respondent was Rs. 2,53,081/-. 14. Let us now consider as to whether the interest can be awarded to the private respondent no.3 on the amount which was payable to him as per the order passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. We find answer to this question in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 wherein it was held as follows :- "Para 14. - In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." 16. Though the Act does not provide for payment of interest, but by following the principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 (Supra), we hold that even in the absence of any specific statutory Rule and/or guideline and/or administrative instruction, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 17. Thus in the instant case, interest can be directed to be paid to compensate the loss which the private respondent suffered due to withholding the payment of his legitimate dues for such a long time. Accordingly, we hold that grant of interest in the instant case was not unjustified. 18. Thus, we modify the award only to this extent that the private respondent no.3 is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,53,081/- together with simple interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act till the date of actual payment thereof. 19. We are informed that some payment has already been made to the respondent no.3 herein towards the calculated amount under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 20. We thus direct the writ petitioner/appellant to pay the balance amount to the respondent no.3 herein within one month from date. 21. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above modification of the order of the Learned Labour Court. Re: CAN 10733 of 2013(Stay) 22. 20. We thus direct the writ petitioner/appellant to pay the balance amount to the respondent no.3 herein within one month from date. 21. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above modification of the order of the Learned Labour Court. Re: CAN 10733 of 2013(Stay) 22. In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. The stay application being CAN 10733 of 2013 is thus deemed to be disposed of. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.