Babu Ram vs Labour Officer and Others

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated January 13, 1983, whereby the writ petition challenging the award Annexure P-1 dated April 1, 1975, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, was dismissed.

Respondent filed a claim petition for compensation on behalf of his minor son Roshan Lal allleging that the latter was employed with Babu Ram petitioner at his sugarcane crusher in village Chulkana, Tehsil and district Sonepat. On March 11, 1974, Roshan Lal respondent while working on the sugarcane crusher in the employment of the petitioner met with an accident. His hand was crushed in the crusher and the crushed hand was separated from the body. He prayed that his minor son Roshan Lal be got paid compensation by the petitioner who is the owner of the sugarcane crusher. In pursuance of this claim petition the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act issued notice to the petitioner for April 23, 1974. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner a plea was taken that Roshan Lal was not employed at his sugarcane crusher and that he was merely a volunteer, who was watching the crusher for pleasure and enjoyment sake when he met with an accident. However, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and the Commissioner vide order dated May 1, 1975 copy Annexure P-1, accepted the claim petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,800/- including Rs. 3780/- by way of penalty u/s 4A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and Rs. 460/- by way of interest to Roshan Lal respondent. In the writ petition, an objection was raised on behalf of the claimant that no writ petition as such was maintainable as the order was appealable one and in order to file the appeal the amount was to be deposited first and, therefore the writ petition was not the alternative remedy. However, this did not find favour with the learned single Judge. On merits, the learned single Judge found that it was admitted that the accident in which Roshan Lal lost his arm did take place at the sugarcane crusher. The Commissioner thereby held that Roshan Lal met with an accident with sugarcane crusher and lost his arm during the course of his employment. It was therefore difficult to hold that no foundation was laid by the Commissioner for allowing compensation to Roshan Lal.

The next contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that there was no justification for the Commissioner to award Rs. 3780/- by way of penalty u/s 4A of the Act. This plea was also negatived as it was found that a notice of the claim petition was given to the writ petitioner. He did not pay the compensation to Roshan Lal within 30 days and instead contested the claim petition. Thus, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to hold that there was sufficient compliance in terms of Section 10A of the Act and the petitioner having failed to pay the compensation, the Commissioner was justified in imposing penalty in terms of Section 4A of the Act.

At the time of motion hearing recovery of the penalty amount of Rs. 3780/- was stayed and it was made clear that this order will in no way affect the recovery of the balance amount. During the pendency of this appeal, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1149 of 1990 was moved in this Court on behalf of the respondent in which it was stated that in spite of the judgment of the learned single Judge, he has not been paid any compensation so far.

The only point submitted by the counsel for the appellant is that there was no justification for imposing penalty of Rs. 3780/- u/s 4A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the learned Commissioner did not apply his mind in this behalf. In support of his contention, he referred to Khillo Chandramma v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. 1971 Lab.I.C. 135, Amarnath Baldev Raj and Another v. The Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act 1981 Lab.I.C. 216, and Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manorama Devi 1985 A.C.J. 367. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent cited Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, ).

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

The penalty imposed was fully justified taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant. It is most unfortunate that the accident took place in the year 1974 and uptill today no compensation has been paid to the injured. As a matter of fact, no writ petition, as such, was maintainable and it was only appeal which could be filed after depositing the amount determined by the Commissioner. The authorities cited on behalf of the respondents have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act contemplates that "where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." Thus, the penalty was rightly imposed by the learned Commissioner in this case. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Since the recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 3780/- was stayed by this Court, the appellant will be liable to pay 12 per cent interest thereon till its realisation, from the date i.e. January 15, 1975 when it had become due to the workman. In case, the principal amount has not been paid till today, the appellant will also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the order of the learned single Judge i.e. January 13, 1983, till its realisation.