DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. MOHD MAQBOOL RATHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances under which this Letters Patent Appeal has come to be filed, be noticed:

(2.) THE short question which is required to be governed is as to whether the provisions of Section 4 -A(3) are available once a decision is given under Section 4 -A. This would necessarily require examination as to what is meant by the terms, "Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act." These are the words used in Section 4 -A(3) of the Act. For facility of reference it would be apt to notice this statutory provision which is reproduced below : - -

(3.) THE legal proposition is well settled. Compensation falls due as soon as accident take place causing death or loss or disablement to the employer. The liability of the employer arises as soon as an injury is caused and not on a subsequent occassion. This is apparent from the plain reading of Section 4 -A(3) of the Act. The judicial precedent in this regard can be cited. In Janatha Modern Rice Mills v. Satyanarayana, 1995 Labour Industrial Cases 677, the Commissioner under the Act allowed interest at the rate of 16% per annum. However, penalty was not allowed. The argument put across was that penalty should also have been allowed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the opinion that the Commissioner cannot allow interest at the rate of 16%, as under the Act, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum can be allowed and as penalty was not allowed, therefore, question of allowing penalty would not arise. The fact that the compensation becomes due as soon as accident takes place and when injury is caused and not on any subsequent occassion is no longer res integra . Other decisions on the point are quoted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in para 9 of the aforesaid judgement. These are as: - -