is perfectly just order. Because of the public money which is at the disposal of the Railway authority, they dragged the labourer to litigation right from the year 1992 to the year 2003 and the amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid to him in 2003 to which he was held entitled in 1992. The learned single Judge has, therefore, held that he is entitled to interest on the amount to which he was entitled for the period during which he was not paid the amount. The learned Counsel submitted that under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such an order could not have been made. In our opinion, as the amount to which the labourer is held entitled is unnecessarily withheld, the labourer is definitely entitled to be compensated for being denied the benefits of such amount for a long time. The order of the learned single Judge is perfectly just and proper. We do not see any reason to interfere with the same. In our opinion, in view of the above, the Appeal is liable to be rejected. Appeal is , therefore, rejected. It is common ground before us that the amount which is directed to be paid has already been deposited by the Appellant in this court. The office shall permit the
