LAWS(BOM)-2004-2-120

SWAPNIL ENTERPRISES Vs. CHANDRAKALA

Decided On February 06, 2004
SWAPNIL ENTERPRISES Appellant
V/S
CHANDRAKALA, KASHIRAM KAWALE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Kashiram Kawale. He was employed by the petitioner as helper and he met with an accident and died on 23-9-1994, and therefore, the legal heirs instituted proceedings before the Commissioner claiming under the provisions of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act ). The parties adduced the evidence and the Commissioner decided the W. C. A. No. 29/96 on 19-10-2001 and directed the petitioner-employer as well as Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation Rs. 1,70,604/- jointly and severally to the applicants with further direction to the employer to pay interest @ 12% p. a. on the amount of compensation with effect from the date of accident till realisation and also to pay penalty to the extent of 15% of compensation amount. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner-employer had filed revision application before the Commissioner being Miscellaneous application No. 1/2002 which came to be rejected on 7-8-2002. This order passed by the Commissioner rejecting review application is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) MS. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that review application before the Commissioner is perfectly maintainable and the Commissioner did not consider the contentions of the employer that during the pendency of the proceedings, he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 8-4-1999. She further contended that as per the order dated 19-10-2001, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 1,70,604/- towards compensation and the employer to pay interest @12% p. a. on the amount of compensation and 15% penalty and these directions are contrary to the provisions of the Act and in such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law. In support of this contention, she relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mahendra Kumar v. Real Feb. Autonagar 1997 (I) CLR 79.