ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: "100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a "technical" contention raised by the workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has been rightly said that a person "who seeks equity must do equity". Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, 6 particularly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 101. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. The payment which is required to be made as per the said order should be made by the applicants intending to prosecute their claims before the Labour Court, Mandsour. In view of the fact, however, that the said period is by now over, ends of justice would be served if we extend the time so as to enable the applicants to refund the amount. We, therefore, extend the time up to 31- 12-2008 to make such payment. We may, however, clarify that the claim petitions will not be proceeded with till such payment is made. If the payment is not made within the period stipulated above, the claim petitions of those applicants will automatically stand dismissed. The Labour Court will take up the claim petitions after 31-12-2008." The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla (supra). We, thus, find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make a direction for refund of the entire amount received by the appellant as a condition precedent for the reference to proceed. 9. We, however, feel that the imposition of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was a little harsh and unwarranted. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is no longer in service, we feel that the ends of justice would meet if the direction for refund is confined only to the principal amount received by the appellant under VRS. We, accordingly, modify 7 the order of the High Court to this limited extent and direct the appellant to refund the amount received by him under VRS, without any interest. In case the amount, as directed, is deposited by the appellant by November 30, 2011, the reference shall proceed in accordance with law, otherwise it would stand quashed.