A N S EARTHMOVERS Vs. SURTO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of F. A. O. Nos. 456,457,458,459, 460 and 461 of 2003. All these appeals have arisen out of common order dated 9. 7. 2003 passed by Commissioner under workmen's Compensation Act at Jhakri in f. A. Nos. 3 of 2001, N. F. A. No. 29 of 2001, F. A. No. 6 of 2001, N. F. A. No. 28 of 2001, F. A. No. 4 of 2001 and F. A. No. 5 of 2001, respectively. The further facts are that F. A. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and N. F. A. Nos. 28 and 29 of 2001 were filed by the petitioners claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act' ). In F. A. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2001, compensation was claimed by the dependants of the deceased workmen, whereas in N. F. A. Nos. 28 and 29 of 2001, the claim petitions were filed by the injured workmen. The Commissioner vide common order dated 9. 7. 2001 in F. A. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 of 2001 and N. F. A. Nos. 28 and 29 of 2001, allowed following compensation and interest: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_942_ACJ_2008Html1.htm</FRM> The Commissioner held New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay the entire compensation along with interest to the claimants with a direction to the insurance company to deposit whole of the compensation amount Rs. 19,69,930 before the Commissioner within one month from the receipt of the order. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed separate appeals being F. A. O. Nos. 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 of 2003, against the common award dated 9. 7. 2003. Those appeals are being disposed of by separate judgment.

(2.) THE Commissioner issued notice to employer on 9. 7. 2001 in all the above cases being F. A. No. 3 of 2001, N. F. A. No. 29 of 2001, F. A. No. 6 of 2001, N. F. A. No. 28 of 2001, F. A. No. 4 of 2001 and f. A. No. 5 of 2001, respectively, as to why penalty under section 4-A (3) (b) of the act be not imposed for violating statutory provision for not settling the claim within stipulated period. Employer filed reply to the show-cause notice and has submitted that the employer had denied the liability under the Act from the very beginning which was based upon law and there was justification for the denial. The claimants were informed their right to move the court for claiming compensation. The insurance company was intimated in time and this fact was mentioned in the replies filed to the main petition. The employer was never negligent in dealing with the matter. The required information was promptly given. There was no delay on the part of the employer for finalising the cases. As per the employer, there was no liability of the employer, thus there was no question of settlement and depositing of compensation. On these grounds, employer justified non-payment/deposit, settlement of compensation.

(3.) THE Commissioner, vide common order dated 6. 8. 2003, has imposed 50 per cent penalty on compensation amount on the employer, under section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act, as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_942_ACJ_2008Html2.htm</FRM> The employer was further directed to deposit Rs. 7,73,961 penalty before the commissioner within one month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which 12 per cent simple interest shall be charged over the amount due.