OM PARKASH Vs. RAMKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, 'W.C. Act', the legality is in issue of a part of the award, absolving the insurer and saddling on the employer liability for payment of penalty and interest under Section 4A(3) of the said Act, which I extract:

(2.) STILL , a tryst with the law for a grand debate appears to me inevitable because the legal landscape is clumsy. Appellant's counsel Mr. Chaturvedi submits that the legal complexion of the lis needs not a renewed exercise as a learned single Judge of this Court has decided the legal issue against the insurer in the unreported decision in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Urmila Bai Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1981; decided on 11.2.1987. I propose, however, to sail on the legal odyssey with the insurer's counsel Mr. Dubey, who has cited a respectable mass of case -law exposing divergence of judicial opinion on the question. I have no doubt at all that the question deserves better consideration and not summary decision. I propose, therefore, to guard myself lest my vision is blurred looking first at Urmila Bai's case, Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1981; decided on 11.2.1987, wherein the judicial endeavour as Mr. Dubey has submitted, had a narrow focus.

(3.) FINALLY , on 25.2.1982, the claim petition of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was disposed of after hearing parties and an award was passed allowing a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - as compensation for the death of Prahlad Singh. The employer and the insurer were directed to deposit within two months the said sum in court though it was made clear that the insurer's primary liability had to be discharged in doing so. So far, there is no contest or dispute. But in the award a further direction was made that the employer not having deposited in court within a month of the date of death of Prahlad Singh, namely 3.10.1979, compensation due payable under the law, he was to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,800/ - and also interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 18,000/ - which he should deposit in court with the costs awarded Rs. 200/ -.