LAIKAN Vs. GARRISON ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.9.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 Workmen Compensation, Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by which the prayer for payment of the interest and penalty was refused.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was lineman in the Electricity Department of respondent No. 1. While on duty some repair work was being done in the electric line on 1100 bolt on 19.11.2001. He fell down from the ladder and died. In view of the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, wife of the petitioner late Bhure, the deceased-employee, was entitled for compensation and if there was delay in payment of the compensation, the department was liable to pay 12% interest and also 50% penalty of the amount of compensation. Officer concerned were approached with the request for compensation and an application was also moved by son of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However, prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected. When there was no payment of compensation and even provisional payment of compensation, then an application was moved with an application to condone the delay, if any, in filing the petition before the respondent No. 2 Workmen Compensation, Commissioner, Bareilly. The application was filed on 11.2.2005, against that objection was filed. However, the petition of the petitioner was entertained by the respondent No. 2. By letter dated 12.8.2005 the respondent No. 2 directed that the respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the compensation and the office of the respondent No. 1 agree for payment of the compensation calculated and decided by the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. According to direction and decision of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for payment of compensation on 12.9.2005 was Rs. 2,71,120 and that amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the office of the Labour Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Bareilly. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 1, in view of sections 3 and 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 was required to make payment of compensation within a month from the incident that in the present case even provisional compensation was not paid and as such the petitioner was entitled for payment of interest as well as 50% penalty of the compensation amount. However, that application was rejected by impugned order dated 16.9.2005 on the ground that there was no direction for payment of the interest and amount of the compensation had already been deposited and regarding payment 24.9.2005 was the date fixed, hence the impugned order by which the prayer for payment of interest and penalty was refused, is liable to be set aside and direction be issued for payment of interest and penalty in view of the provision. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the prayer for compassionate appointment of son of the deceased in Para 7 of the judgment was considered. However, the same was rejected with the observation that the family of the deceased employee was entitled for all retiral benefits and compensation. The petition before the Commissioner was to be filed for claiming of the compensation within two years. However, after two years an application was filed, hence the petition itself was not maintainable being barred by time. However, taking lenient view whatever direction was issued for payment of compensation after calculating the same by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, respondent No. 2, the same was paid by the department of respondent No. 1. Hence the petitioner is not entitled either for interest or any penalty because after direction the respondent No. 2 there was no delay in payment of the compensation and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Considering the submissions of Counsel for the parties. Admittedly the petitioner is wife of the deceased-employee who was working as lineman on the date of the incident i.e., 19.11.20201. While he was working for repair of the fault in the line of 1100 bolt he fell down and succumbed to injuries. In view of the provision under section 3 of Workmen Compensation Act he was entitled for compensation even liability of the compensation has not been denied which was considered. The employer-respondent No. 1, as per direction of the respondent No. 1 whatever compensation was calculated that was a sum of Rs. 271,120/- and the same was deposited by the respondent No. 1 on 12.9.2005 through a cheque issued on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bareilly and by impugned order dated itself 24.9.2005 was the date fixed for payment of compensation to the petitioner and same was paid. Now the dispute is regarding payment of interest and penalty.