EASTERN RAILWAY DHANBAD Vs. JHALIA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Eastern Railway is the appellant, and has by preferring this appeal engaged itself in a most frivolous and unwanted litigation. They are chasing a helpless widow whose husband had died while on duty on 29.3.95. He was engaged as a gangman and died while in harness at village Tori, District Palamu. The widow's claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was registered as W.C. No. 10 of 1997, Jhalia Devi v. Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh, passed the impugned order dated 22.7.1998, wherein he came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 67,796 was deposited after a delay of one year and ten months. According to the impugned order the accident had taken place on 29.3.95 resulting in the death of Deb Narayan, the husband of the respondent and the amount of compensation of Rs. 67,796 has been deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 11.3.97. There was thus a delay of a little less than two years in depositing the amount. By the impugned order, interest at the rate of 12 per cent for the period 29.4.95 to 10.3.1997 has been directed to be deposited till 25.8.1998, which has not till date been complied.

(2.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as it stands today, provides that the Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rate of any scheduled bank. He submits that this amendment was enforced by Act 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995. In his submission, the accident took place on 29.3.1995 and, therefore, the unamended provision will apply in the present case which was to the effect that interest at the rate of 6 per cent shall be payable. Learned counsel was unable to advance any submission as to why the unamended provision be applied. The amendment being a beneficial legislation, why should not the same be applied in the present case which was in force on the date of the impugned judgment. Secondly, the appellant may be within the mischief of the second part of section 4-A (3) of the Act which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 30 of the Act which provides that no appeal of an employer in clause (a) shall lie without a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under appeal. He is, therefore, right in his submission that the present memorandum of appeal is not accompanied with the requisite certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited only the amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 67,796, and has not deposited the interest paid by the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the appeal is not maintainable.