ORDER : Ravi Malimath, J. The workman was employed with the company as a Radio Mechanic. On certain charges of misconduct of theft of the company's properties, Articles of charges was issued. An inquiry was held. Charges were held proved. He was imposed a punishment of demotion. 2. The workman raised an industrial dispute against the punishment imposed on him. A reference was made. The Tribunal, by the award dated 7.7.1993, modified the punishment by holding that the management was not justified in imposing the penalty of demotion. On the contrary, it imposed a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and that the workman was entitled for re-fixation of pay and back-wages, increments with arrears etc. 3. Questioning the same, the Company filed Writ Petition No.2980 of 1994 before the High Court of Karnataka. The workman also filed Writ Petition No.25954 of 1994. By order dated 15.9.1998, both the petitions were dismissed. 4. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the workman submitted a Voluntary and Unconditional Retirement Application on 30.8.1997 under the existing scheme. The same was accepted and he was relieved from service with effect from 30.9.1997. The company is said to have calculated the amounts due to him. 5. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Company preferred Writ Appeal No.2426 of 1999. By the order dated 8.9.1999, the writ appeal was dismissed as nothing would survive for consideration in view of the voluntary retirement of the workman. 6. Thereafter, the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying to compute the benefits he is entitled to in terms of the Award dated 7.7.1993. The Labour Court, by its order dated 15.4.2004, allowed the application and directed the company to submit calculation of VRS compensation. The Tribunal passed the Award deducting the amount already paid to the applicant. 7. The Company filed Writ Petition No.27617 of 2004 questioning the said order. By order dated 5.8.2004, the petition was allowed. The order of the Labour Court was quashed and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. 8. After remand, the Labour Court passed an order dated 31.1.2005 directing the company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,02,523/- along with interest at 9% per annum. The Company filed Writ Petition No.13026 of 2005 questioning the same. By the order dated 25.7.2005, the petition was allowed. 8. After remand, the Labour Court passed an order dated 31.1.2005 directing the company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,02,523/- along with interest at 9% per annum. The Company filed Writ Petition No.13026 of 2005 questioning the same. By the order dated 25.7.2005, the petition was allowed. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court to restore the Application No.35 of 1999 to its original file and to dispose off the application on merits. 9. The Labour Court thereafter passed an order dated 20.9.2008. The same was challenged in Writ Petition No.14685/2008 before the High Court of Karnataka. By the order dated 31.1.2009, the petition was allowed. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh calculation. 10. After remand, the impugned order was passed by the Labour Court directing the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,829/- along with interest at 12% per annum, from the date of Award, namely, 7.7.1993 till the date of payment of money. Questioning the same, the Company has filed Writ Petition No.25667 of 2009 to the extent of grant of interest as well as the period for which it is awarded. Seeking enhancement, the workman has filed Writ Petition No.18376 of 2009. 11. Shri Vishwanath, Learned Counsel appearing for the Company contends that the grant of interest of 12% per annum is uncalled for. The question of paying interest would not arise for consideration. That the workman is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,25,829/- and therefore, no interest could be paid. 12. The Counsel for the workman is absent. 13. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner on this issue, I am of the view that there is no merit in this contention. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 1,25,829/- is due to the workman. It was due as on the date of the Award passed by the Labour Court on 7.7.1993. It is on that date that the amount should have passed on from the management to the workman. They have not done so. They have entered into a series of litigations as narrated here-in-above. Money would always carry interest, whether in the hands of the management or workman. It is the amount which the workman was entitled to as on the date of the Award. They have not done so. They have entered into a series of litigations as narrated here-in-above. Money would always carry interest, whether in the hands of the management or workman. It is the amount which the workman was entitled to as on the date of the Award. This amount with the management is withheld. Therefore, grant of interest to the workman cannot be said to be unjustified. Even though the claim of the workman was for grant of interest at 21% per annum, the Labour Court was of the view that the extent of 12% per annum would be just and proper. I do not find any error committed by the Labour Court in granting interest at 12% per annum. Therefore, this contention is rejected. 14. The further contention is that the workman having obtained voluntary retirement, interest can be calculated only up to the date that he was working with the company and beyond that, the question of granting interest on the said amount would not arise for consideration. The Labour Court while considering the issue has detailed calculations in Paragraph 17 of its judgment. It has culled out the claim put up by the workman as well as the management that a sum of Rs. 84,442/- was due to be paid to the workman on account of difference of wages, Dearness Allowance etc., due to the erroneous demotion of the workman. Thereafter, the voluntary retirement benefits have been calculated in a sum of Rs. 38,887/-, gratuity at Rs. 15,555/- , leave encashment at Rs. 1,236/-, sick leave encashment at Rs. 1,037/- and company's contribution to provident fund at Rs. 227/-. A sum of Rs. 15,555/- has been deducted towards gratuity. Therefore, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,25,829/- was due. 15. The Labour Court, in Paragraph-22 of its order, relied upon the statement furnished by the management with the extent of the said amounts. Therefore, it was of the view that the interest awarded from the date of the original award passed by the Labour Court is the date from which interest is to be calculated. 16. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court are just and proper. I find no perversity in the said order that calls for any interference. Hence, I find no good ground to allow Writ Petition No.25567 of 2009. Hence, the same is dismissed. 17. 16. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court are just and proper. I find no perversity in the said order that calls for any interference. Hence, I find no good ground to allow Writ Petition No.25567 of 2009. Hence, the same is dismissed. 17. Writ Petition No.18376 of 2009 is filed by the workman by pleading that the calculation made thereon is erroneous. 18. I have considered the pleadings as well as the contentions of the Counsel for the management. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court in arriving at the figures as narrated here-in-above is based on the pleadings. The calculations have been arrived at based on the submissions made by both sides. The difference in wages and various other entitlements have also been culled out therein. I do not find that there is any greater amount that is due to the workman than the amount which is determined by the Labour Court. The fixation of the amount in terms of the impugned order is just and proper. Hence, I find no ground to enhance the same. 19. Consequently, Writ Petition No.18376 of 2009 being devoid of merit is dismissed. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions are dismissed.