RAMAKANT ROUT ALIAS ROUTRAY Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STAMP Reporter has pointed out that absence of certificate required under Section 30 (1) third proviso, of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act') is a defect to be removed by the appellant.

(2.) IMPUGNED order is a composite order determining the compensation as well as the penalty under Section 4-A of the Act and direction to pay the same. Mr. L. Dash, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that imposition of the penalty is being assailed in this case on various grounds, one of which is that no opportunity was given to the owner to have his say in the matter of penalty since the rate of penalty is not fixed and a discretion is left with the Commissioner to either absolve the owner from paying any penalty or direct to pay such amount lesser than the maximum rate fixed in Section 4-A of the Act. Accordingly, Mr. Dash submitted that prima facie there is a strong ground in the appeal which in the minimum is to be remitted back for reconsideration to give opportunity to the appellant for making submissions and furnishing materials why the penalty should not be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.

(3.) MR. Dash further submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in this case are: