GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VADODARA Vs. MOLJIBHAI LALABHAI CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board and its Superintending Engineer under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 9th July, 1992 in Workmen Compensation Application No. 9 of 1991 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, jamnagar, whereby the learned Commissioner partly allowed the application of the workman and awarded Rs. 89245/- to the workman instead of Rs. 92085/- claimed by him with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and also awarded penalty at the rate of 35% over the amount of compensation.

(2.) Though this being a First Appeal, under the First Proviso to section 30 (1) of the Act, no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants has restricted his challenge in this appeal only to the order of penalty passed by the learned Commissioner. He has framed the following substantial question of law in this appeal for the determination by this Court Whether in case of a non-scheduled injury where the employee has failed to produce disability certificate despite being so required, the imposition of burden of penalty is sustainable at law?

(3.) Mr. Pandya submitted that this is a case where the appellants were always ready and willing to deposit the amount of compensation with the learned Commissioner, but they could not deposit the same only because the workman failed to produce the medical certificate of non-scheduled injuries which were received by him. He further submitted that repeatedly the workman was called upon to produce the medical certificate regarding his injuries, but he had not responded to the same. Not only that, an application dated 27-8-91 (Ex. 14) was also moved by the appellants before the learned Commissioner for production of the disability certificate by the workman and though the learned Commissioner also passed an order and called upon the workman to produce the certificate by his order dated 27th Septmeber, 1991 the same was not produced. He, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner committed a grave error of law in awarding penalty at the rate of 35% over the amount of compensation.