HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.521 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent herein was employed as a stone-cutter by the petitioner on 11/10/1996. The respondent sustained injury during the course of employment. As a result, he lost his sight. He approached the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, for compensation with an application under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). It was taken up as W.C.No.41 of 2000. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,65,753/- as compensation. The Tribunal initially passed an ex parte order on 29/11/2002. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. Since the IA was dismissed, he approached this Court by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In that appeal, this Court imposed a condition to the effect that the appellant herein shall deposit half of the amount awarded by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration of the IA itself. After such remand, the Commissioner passed an order dated 09/04/2009 awarding a sum of Rs.1,55,543/- confirming its earlier order. In addition to that, it awarded interest at 9% p.a. on the balance of the amount and penalty to the extent of 50%. The appellant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant does not dispute that the respondent was employed with it and that on account of the injury sustained by the respondent, during the course of employment, he totally lost his sight. The Commissioner had applied the relevant factor taking into account the age and wages of the respondent and awarded the compensation. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It is strongly urged on behalf of the appellant that the penalty imposed by the Commissioner is not tenable. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant has dragged the proceedings for the past several years and that the penalty is justified. Section 4-A of the Act, no doubt, empowers the Commissioner to impose penalty. However, the penalty is to be imposed when the employer delays the payment of the amount which is adjudicated. In other words, the penalty cannot be levied even while passing the award. It is only when the award has become final and when there is undue delay on the part of the employer to deposit the amount, that penalty can be levied. Therefore, the order under appeal in so far as it levied penalty to the extent of 50% cannot be sustained in law. This Court is of the view that the respondent can be compensated for the delay in the proceedings on account of the appellant by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the award in so far as it imposed penalty. In its place, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is imposed as costs. It is brought to the notice of this Court, the entire amount awarded by the Commissioner, except to the extent of 5,000/- or 6,000/-, was deposited. The appellant is granted two weeks time to pay the balance of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, if any, after excluding the deposited amount and adding a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same forthwith. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02nd July, 2010 SKM