ERA CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER WORKMEN COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point raised in this appeal by the appellant was that the claim became due and payable to the dependents of the deceased only when the claim was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") and therefore the liability to pay penalty or interest can accrue only from the date of such adjudication. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Musbasir Ahmed & Anr., 2007 AIR(SC) 1208, decided on 01.02.2007, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the liability to pay interest under Section 4A(3) has been pleased to make the following observations:-

(2.) It may however be observed that this judgment does not help the case of the appellant inasmuch as the present case was a case of death and therefore, the date of arising of the cause of action for payment was known to everyone including the appellant who admittedly was a sub-contractor and thus is covered in the definition of "managing agent" as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and therefore becomes an "employer" as defined Section 2 (e). The two Sections are also reproduced for the sake of reference:- "2(e)"employer" includes anybody of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him.

(3.) Additionally, it may also be observed that in a Constitution Bench judgment delivered in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata & Anr., 1976 1 SCC 289 the issue as to when the liability to pay compensation arises has been discussed. The relevant discussion appears in para 4, 6 and 7 of the said judgment and reads as under:-