EMERALD INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. SMT. GANGA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act , 1923 (the employees compensation Act, 1923) against the order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in case MCC No.31/B/W.C.A./2011, whereby application preferred by the appellant under Section 152 of CPC has been rejected and order dated 02.09.2004 (Annexure A-2), passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation No.1, Gwalior, whereby the claim preferred by the respondents No.1 to 6 as claimants has been allowed. Precisely stated facts are that the husband of respondent No.1 Govind was an employee of the appellant company and on 05.03.1999 while he was going from Gwalior to Delhi and driving the vehicle as driver met with an accident and died on account of this accident.

(2.) The legal heirs (present respondents No.1 to 6) preferred claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation under Sections 4 , 10 and 22 of the Act, 1923. The Labour Court considered the case and thereafter, awarded Rs.3,11,970/- as compensation alongwith 12% interest and 10% penalty. As per award dated 02.09.2004, the compensation was to be given by the insurer/present respondent No.7, penalty and interest were to be paid by the present appellant/employer. It appears that the amount of compensation was paid by the insurance company and penalty was paid by the employer. Dispute arose in respect of payment of interest. As per the perception of appellant, the interest was to be paid by the insurer. Therefore, after seven years in 2011, an application under Section 152 of CPC was preferred by the appellant allegedly for correction of alleged arithmetical mistake. As per the submissions, the award contains an arithmetical/clerical error wherein interest was allegedly imposed over the appellant whereas ought to have been imposed over the insurer. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.09.2011 by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation on the ground of in-ordinary delay and laches. Therefore, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1923.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal can be condoned in light of judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others [2000 (7) SCC 372], Amar Singh Vs. Pooran and others [2007 (2) MPLJ 215] and Digambar Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Maya Bai and others [2007(1)MPHT 69].