SMT. MAGNI DEVI Vs. SHYAMSUNDER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself is finally disposed of at this stage itself. The only grievance made by the appellant is that the learned Commissioner while making award of compensation has declined to award interest and penalty without any basis. Learned counsel contends that the liability to pay compensation was not denied by the employer and admittedly the payment of compensation was not made within one month of its becoming due. As such, on the face of language of Sec. 4-A of the Workman's Compensation Act, learned Commissioner had no discretion to decline to award interest. Regarding penalty, it is submitted, that the penalty could be declined only if the learned Commissioner was of the opinion that there was justification for not making payment within a month of its becoming due. Since there is not such finding, the penalty was also required to be awarded.

(2.) Controverting the submission, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the employer had remained ex-parte and, therefore, it cannot be said that the employer had not denied the liability for payment. It was then contended that no claim for interest was made by the claimant, nor any issue was framed in this regard, nor even the demand for interest and penalty was pressed before the learned Commissioner. It is also contended that award of interest and penalty was in the discretion of learned Commissioner, as such non-award does not give any rise to substantial question of law.

(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Learned counsel for the employer, even at this stage is not in a position to make a categoric statement as to whether he admits the liability or denies the liability in absence of specific instructions from his client. In this view of the matter, it has but to be concluded that even as on the date, the employer has not denied the liability for payment of compensation.