SATYA DEVI SHARMA Vs. MEGH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award of Collector, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for Sub Division, Shimla (Rural), District Shimla, H.P. By means of impugned order dated 24.9.2001 passed in Case No. 6 of 1998 while allowing compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,12,307, it was ordered to be deposited within one month of the date of the said decision. Insurance company was held liable for payment of compensation of this amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for everyday of delay thereafter. Besides the aforesaid amount of compensation, both the respondents have been held liable to pay Rs. 5,000 each by way of penalty.

(2.) When the appeal was filed following two substantial questions of law were framed on behalf of the appellants:

(3.) Though Mr. Chauhan learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his clients are entitled to the benefit of amended provision of section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') he was unable to persuade the court as to on what principle of law much less a rule of interpretation this plea has been raised. Only argument addressed was that being a beneficent legislation it needs to be liberally construed so as to advance the object with which it was enacted and amended from time to time; including such amendments which are carried out while the case is pending either before the Commissioner or at the appellate stage as the case may be.