RAKESH MAHENDRU Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER WEST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 3 is the widow of late workman Triloki Yadav who had died in an accident on 28.1.2007 in the course of his employment while he was employed with the petitioner Rakesh Mahendru.

(2.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, vide its order dated 23.1.2008 passed an award of compensation in favour of the respondent No. 3 and thereby awarded her a sum of Rs. 3,32,580 and Rs. 2,500 towards funeral expenses. THE compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was deposited by the insurance company (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29.1.2008 and the same was disbursed amongst the legal heirs of the deceased workman vide order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, dated 11.2.2008. THEreafter, on 12.3.2008, the widow of deceased workman, respondent No. 3, had moved an application under section 4-A read with section 22-A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, for award of interest and penalty because of default on the part of the employer in depositing the compensation amount within one month from the date of the accident. THE Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, respondent No. 1, disposed of the said application of respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 28.4.2009 and awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on compensation amount of Rs. 3,32,580 for the period of delay, i.e., for the period from 27.2.2007 till the date of deposit of compensation amount on 29.1.2008 which was quantified at Rs. 36,584. THE respondent No. 1 also awarded penalty against the petitioner at the rate of 50 per cent of the principal amount which was quantified at Rs. 1,66,290. THE interest awarded vide order dated 28.4.2009 was ordered to be paid by the insurance company respondent No. 2, and the penalty amount was ordered to be paid by the employer (the petitioner herein). It is aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the award of penalty and interest, inter alia, on the ground that since the amount of compensation adjudicated by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, vide its order dated 23.1.2008 was promptly deposited by the insurance company within five days of the adjudication on 29.1.2008, the interest and penalty under section 4-A read with section 22-A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 could not have been awarded by the Commissioner.

(3.) MS. Pratima Chaudhary relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Phuli Devi v. Jawahar Singh, L.P.A. No. 54 of 2009; decided on 17.3.2009, in support of her argument against the maintainability of the present writ petition. Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had no answer to the objection against the maintainability urged on behalf of respondent No. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had simply contended that the writ court has ample powers and can entertain a writ petition even if statutory remedy of appeal is not availed by the petitioner.