JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.). 2. The petitioner's husband, Late Shiv Kumar Dubey was employed as driver with the U.P.S.R.T.C. In departmental proceedings, he was awarded punishment by means of order dated 24.12.1985 whereby his annual increment for a period of three years was stopped and his pay during the period he was placed under suspension was also forfeited. The said punishment order was challenged by the husband of the petitioner by invoking the relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act whereupon the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court on 24.05.1995. The reference for adjudication made was as to whether the punishment order dated 24.12.195 passed by the employer i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C. is improper or illegal ? If yes, to what benefit/relief the workman is entitled to. 3. The aforesaid reference was adjudicated by the Labour Court at Faizabad and the Presiding Officer by means of order dated 03.11.2001 set aside the punishment order dated 24.12.1985 and further provided that the husband of the petitioner shall be paid all his benefits in the manner as if the impugned order of punishment dated 24.12.1985 was never passed. 4. In compliance of the said award certain amounts were paid to the petitioner, who is the widowed wife of the workman. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 3697/- on 02.03.2012 and another sum of Rs. 48828 on 19.12.2012. A cheque amounting to Rs. 82322/-, dated 17.08.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Civil Lines, Faizabad was also paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed receiving of the aforesaid amounts, however, it has been submitted on her behalf that since the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had directed for payment of all the benefits in the manner as if the punishment order dated 24.12.1985 was never passed, the petitioner was entitled to be paid interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% p.a. An application to the said effect was moved before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Faizabad wherein a prayer was made by the petitioner that she be paid interest on the amounts already paid to her w.e.f. the date of order of punishment i.e. 24.12.1985. 5. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faizabad which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition clearly reveals that no objection as regards the payment of interest was filed by the employer i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C. The clear recital made in the said order is as follows: - "Lksok;kstd ds vf/kÑr izfrfuf/k }kjk C;kt fnyk;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkifRr ugha dh xbZ gS k 6. Looking into the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the record available, the Presiding Officer while passing the order dated 29.09.2015 has held that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest on the payments already made to the petitioner at the rate of 7% simple interest. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at the rate of 7%, however, he states that the interest ought to have been ordered to be paid to the petitioner not w.e.f. the date of making application for the said purpose i.e. 10.06.2009, but w.e.f. the date of passing of the order of punishment i.e. w.e.f. 24.12.1985. 8. The Presiding Officer has clearly held that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at the rate of 7%. The rate of interest is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, his submission that the petitioner would be entitled to be paid interest not w.e.f 10.06.2009 i.e. the date on which the application for payment of interest was moved but she will be entitled to be paid interest w.e.f. the date of passing of the punishment order i.e. 24.12.1985, needs to be considered. 9. The award dated 03.11.2001, passed by the Labour Court is very clear in its terms. The writ petition preferred by the U.P.S.R.T.C. against the said award dated 03.11.2001 was also dismissed by this Court by means of order dated 25.04.2012. A clear stipulation has been made in the award dated 03.11.2001 which very specifically provides that the workman, late Shiv Kumar Dubey shall be entitled to all the benefits in the manner as if the punishment order dated 24.12.1985 was never passed. A clear stipulation has been made in the award dated 03.11.2001 which very specifically provides that the workman, late Shiv Kumar Dubey shall be entitled to all the benefits in the manner as if the punishment order dated 24.12.1985 was never passed. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is widow of the workman, will be entitled to get all the benefits w.e.f. 24.12.1985 and not w.e.f. the date on which the application for grant of interest was made i.e. 10.06.2009. The Presiding Officer, in my opinion, could not have gone beyond the award dated 03.11.2001, which in unambiguous terms, provides that workman will be entitled to all the benefits as if the punishment order dated 24.12.1985 was never passed. The simple construction of the operative portion of the award is that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest on the amount already paid to her not w.e.f. 10.06.2009 but w.e.f. 24.12.1985 itself. The Presiding Officer has also held that the workman is entitled to be paid interest on the amount of Rs. 1,34847/-, however, he has held that the said interest is payable w.e.f. 10.06.2009. In my considered opinion, the Presiding Officer appears to have clearly travelled beyond the terms of the award which legally was not permissible for the Presiding Officer while passing the impugned order dated 29.09.2015. 10. For the reasons disclosed above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faizabad, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled and paid interest at the rate of 7% from the date the said amount became due to the workman, namely, late Shiv Kumar Dubey till the date of its actual payment. The amount to be paid under this order shall be calculated by the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and shall be paid to the petitioner within next two weeks. 11. However, there will be no order as to costs.