MEENA KUMARI Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment is being dictated in open court in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) PARTAP Singh, assistant lineman was employed with respondent Board and was working at the Sub-Station, Kiani, District chamba, Himachal Pradesh. While in service, on 30. 12. 1992 while replacing the kit-kat at the time of cleaning and maintaining of Sub-Station, Kiani, District Chamba, himachal Pradesh, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries due to electric shock. As a result of electric shock, he fell from the pole on the ground, he was admitted to the hospital in serious condition but succumbed to injuries on 31. 12. 1992. He left behind 5 minor children and a widow. Respondent board has already awarded compassionate appointment in April 1993 to his wife. The respondent Board as a model employer, of its own, reported the matter through its asstt. Engineer (E), Sub-Station, Koti, district Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, to the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandi, which was registered as Case no. 74 of 1996 for the determination of compensation under the provisions of the workmen's Compensation Act.

(3.) VIDE orders dated 9. 8. 1996, the Commissioner has awarded compensation of rs. 92,884, which admittedly has been paid to the petitioner on 17. 10. 1996. However, the dispute in the present petition pertains to non-imposition of penalty in terms of section 4-A (3) of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923. Perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that the liability for compensation was not in dispute at any point of time. It is also not in dispute that the deceased employee would not be disentitled for compensation on any of the grounds as mentioned in section 3 (1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is fully entitled for her statutory entitlement of penalty. As already noticed hereinabove, as a model employer, it was the respondent Board, who had of its own reported the matter for award of compensation. However, sections 3 and 4 enjoin a duty upon the respondent board to have quantified the undisputed amount and deposited the same with the commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner got her compensation only after a period of four years. The delay in adjudication is not attributable to the petitioner.