NANDA PANDHARI Vs. BHIKAJI GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) Advocate Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, for petitioners/dependents contend that Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Court, Buldhana has in WCA (F) Case No.11/2004 (Old case no. 6/2001), failed to exercise jurisdiction to award interest at 12%. He invites attention to the provisions of Section 4A[3] clause [1] of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to contend that grant of 12% interest was mandatory. He further argues that in view of provisions of clause [b] of that sub-section, interest ought to have been awarded also on penalty amount awarded to the dependents. In order to show that he could not have challenged this non grant of interest in Appeal under section 30, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Bai and others .vrs. Kishanlal and another (1991 ACJ 615).

(3.) Advocate Shri S.R. Deshpande, on the other hand invites attention to Section 30[1][a] of the Act, to contend that the statute permits filing of appeal even when interest is not awarded. He further relies upon the provisions of Section 4A[3] to urge that in any case claim for interest on penalty amount is not supported by those provisions.