M.P. State Road Trans. Corporation vs Narendra Singh Gaur

B.M. Lal, J.—This appeal is directed u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Labour Court, Sagar, dated 24.5.1980 whereby the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has awarded Rs. 990/- as compensation and penalty of 50 per cent with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of compensation fell due to the date of its realisation.

Short fads leading to this case are as under: The Respondent Narendra Singh Gaur, claimant who was working in the employment of the Appellant as a driver, was posted at the relevant time at Jabalpur. He was getting salary of Rs. 250/- per month. By the order dated 13.2.1979, he was attached to the Divisional Office and thereafter attached to the Divisional Workshop at Jabalpur, but he used to get his pay from Sagar Depot.

On 1.6.1979 the Respondent was going to Sagar by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport bus for getting his salary. The said bus met with an accident with a truck, as a result of which the Respondent Narendra Singh sustained injuries to his hand and as such according to him he suffered a permanent disability. The Respondent, therefore, filed a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Sagar claiming Rs. 25,280/-.

The Appellant-employer denied the allegations and stated that the employee Narendra Singh did not suffer any injuries during the course of his employment nor did the accident arise out of the employment. Therefore, the Respondent is not entitled for any amount of compensation. It was also stated that the Respondent had voluntarily kept his hand outside the window and therefore, he suffered injuries for which the Appellant-employer is not responsible.

On inquiry, the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, found that the Respondent Narendra Singh is entitled for compensation of Rs. 990/-, plus 50 per cent as penalty with an interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date the compensation fell due to the date of its realisation, against which the present appeal has been filed.

It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent did not suffer any injury during the course of his employment and that the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, committed an error of law in awarding 50 per cent as penalty and compensation of Rs. 990/-. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation and stated that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity which could warrant interference by this Court.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned Counsel, I have reached the conclusions that this appeal must be dismissed.

The first point urged on behalf of the Appellant-employer is that the Respondent at the relevant time was not under the employment of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has no substance for the reason that at the relevant time the Respondent was attached to the Divisional Office at Jabalpur and according to the order of the management (employer), he was required to draw his salary from Sagar Depot and for that purpose alone, on 1.6.1979 he was going to Sagar to draw his salary by a Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus which met with an accident and therefore, it be deemed that the Respondent was on duty and he did suffer injuries during the course of his employment.

As regards second contention of the Appellant, the principle for grant of compensation under the provisions of the Act is governed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Act. The penalty clause and the interest clause occur in Section 4A of the Act which reads as under:

4-A Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default

(1) Compensation u/s 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due.

(2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts and such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.

(3) 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.

If the compensation is not paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, as soon as it falls due then the penalty clause comes into operation. The expression "as soon as it falls due" although has not been defined in the Act, yet all the same by the aid of the provision of Section 4A, Clause (3), it could be gathered that if after the notice, compensation is not paid within 30 days from the date of the service of the notice, the penalty clause comes into operation. Further, Clause (3) of Section 4A of the Act is also very emphatic and therefore, the penalty as has been imposed, is proper, being in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in my opinion, it does not require any interference. The concept of grant of compensation u/s 4 of the Act and penalty and interest u/s 4A of the Act is in harmony with the advance of thoughts in all industrial and civilised countries which was enacted by the Parliament with an aim and object to ensure that the workman is able to get whatever amount the employer is prepared to pay immediately pending decision on the amount of compensation actually due. The provisions of Section 4A of the Act also provide for payment of interest if the compensation is not paid within one month from the due date and for a penalty if the Commissioner does not consider the delay to be justified. Therefore, the management (employer) is required to pay the compensation within the statutory period and if the amount due has not been paid within the prescribed time, there is no reason to deal the matter leniently and penalty as contemplated u/s 4A(3) of the Act must be imposed. It is a statutory duty cast upon the management to pay its worker so that he may not feel handicapped in getting the timely medical aid and therefore, in my opinion, in the circumstances where the management despite the notice has not paid compensation to its worker the penalty clause must be applied strictly.

These provisions relating to compensation, penalty and interest, embodied in Sections 4 and 4A of the Act, ensure social reforms in conformity with the provisions of Article 39(e) of the Constitution of India and therefore, keeping in view the concept of social justice in industrial field, the provisions of imposing penalty cannot be said to be improper under such circumstances and the arguments as advanced by the learned Counsel for the management that penalty has been wrongly imposed have no merit and must be repelled.

Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/-, if certified.