ORDER : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner-North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), is aggrieved by the order dated 19-7-2014 passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,484/- to the applicant within three months from the date of passing of the order, after making compulsory deductions. In default, the Corporation was also directed to pay the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation. In short, the case of the petitioner is that in 1997 the respondent-workman was appointed as Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. Due to certain alleged pilferage committed by the respondent, he was dismissed from the service. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he raised a labour dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Bijapur. After going through the entire evidence, by award dated 6-9-2011, the learned Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, with continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits. Since the Corporation was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 81760 of 2012 before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 19-6-2013, this Court modified the award and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service without back wages, and other consequential benefits. Since the Corporation did not implement either the award or the order passed by this Court, the respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the Labour Court, Bijapur, and sought payment of Rs. 3,26,484/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the award till the date of realisation. By the impugned order dated 19-7-2014, the said application has been partly allowed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before this Court: "Firstly, after passing of the impugned order, the Corporation has recalculated the amount to be paid to the respondent. According to the recalculation, the Corporation owes merely Rs. 2,53,059/- and does not owe an amount of Rs. 3,21,484/-, to the respondent. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. According to the recalculation, the Corporation owes merely Rs. 2,53,059/- and does not owe an amount of Rs. 3,21,484/-, to the respondent. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. Secondly, that the Corporation is willing to deposit the amount directed by the Labour Court before this Court. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside." 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 4. Neither of the two contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are acceptable. For, even if the Corporation has recalculated the amount due to the respondent, merely by furnishing such recalculation amount, this Court cannot set aside the impugned order. Whether the recalculation is corrected one or not is a disputed question of fact; the said question of fact can be contested only before the Labour Court and certainly not before this Court. Moreover, if any need for recalculation had arisen, the exercise should have been carried out while the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court and not thereafter. Thus, by submitting the recalculation, in the form of Annexure-C, the legality of the impugned order cannot be doubted. 5. Even by depositing the entire amount as directed by the Labour Court, no fruitful purpose would be served. For, this Court requires to examine the legality or illegality of the impugned order. As far as the legality of the order is concerned, a bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that during the cross-examination, the Corporation witness had clearly admitted that in the calculated version submitted by the Corporation, they had not included the 10% basic which was enhanced with effect from 1-1-2012, and had not included 76.75% of dearness allowance which was merged with the basic pay. Moreover, according to the learned Labour Court, the Corporation had not included the periodical increment which was due to the respondent. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in accepting the calculation made by the respondent, and in rejecting the calculation made by the Corporation. Thus, the Labour Court has given cogent and valid reasons for allowing the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.