3^ r^Nld^l, ^Td^Ko, fadl^y <-R^» ^RTOcfT^iW^ 3TT^T ..M4.-.^.-....^^ 2004 W^fT^T R^i<=b3TT^T $b^i^^f?cT 3TR?T S^cTTW <yi$a <=hl^fd41-< WT^it ^ fe^ ^I^K ^3?^T3T1^T Appellants 1. 2. VE Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through the Additional Supermtendiag Engineer (O & M) Dwision, Chliattisgarh State Electricrty Board, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) The Ex^cutive Engmeer, (O 8& M) Chhattisgarh State Electdcity Board, Raigarh (C.G.) ?sus aespondeiits 1. 2. 11.4.2007 Shri Viaod Deshixiiikfli Heard. The appeUants have 30 of the Workmen's ComTJ as he is aggneved by fhe or{3 by the Commissioner foi Raigarh ia Case No, 13 learaed Commissioner has Smt. Nanki Bai Sidhar, Wife of late Babiilal Sidhar, aged about 42 years, Resident of Vmobha Nagar, Boirdadar, Raigarh (C.G.) The Coimnissioner for Workmen's Conipensation, Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) , counsel for fhe appeUants. ortler t>referred this appeal under Section j|ensation Act, 1923 (Act for brevily) dated 28th ofJune 2004 passed Workmen's Compensation Act, ^VCA/2004 (Misc.)/(f) whereby the |iaiposed a penatty of Rs, 50,000/~ _. \" \^T^^fe^) XI-HC-22 3^cT r^l^ld^, ^<I^G, t^^wy 3TT^?T qsich (?TR^8T$h^l8€h ^. ..^A-.^.. ^oA^. . ^. 200 S 3T1^T^T ^TT^W^T ^[T^)^T^<1 W^T^RITW^iN -/z chi^Id41ri ^i^dT^te^<^i^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^?T for delay ia depositing provisions of Section 4A Learaed counsel fd amouiit was deposited ^ ihe amLOunt of compesisation as per |sub-section 3 (b) offhe Act |r the appeUaats submits fhat after the \y the appellaats a show cause notice was issued by the Tribuijial caUiag upon fhe appeUants to show cause as to why penaltj above show cause notio r should not be ioiposed for delay ia depositing fhe compens|ation. The appellants repUed to fhe ^ aad assigned fhe rcasons for delay. However, wifhout consi|deriag ttie reasons assigned by tiie appeUaats for fhe delay, the above penalty has been iniposed aad fhereforc substaati€|lquestion of law as proposed by fhe appeUants vide I.A. No. $03/2005 dated 02.03.2005 arises for adjudication of this appe^ I have perused the substantial questions oj d. I have heard couns|el for fhe appeBaiits, impugned order as also fhe proposed law. It is not ia dispute fhat fhe workmaa died ia fhe cou|rse of his eniployment on 17,06.2003 aad the appellaats/einpl|oyer accepting the entiflemcnt of the deceased workinaii for c^inpensation under fhe Act, deposited the amoiiiit ofcompensa^ion ia the Tribunal on 19.01.2004 ie. inorc fhan five nionths wpien fhe amount of coinpensatton was fell due for penally. Sub-section 3(b) discretion with fhe Coi F>f Section 4 A of the Act, vests tmnissioner to impose penalty not exceeding 50% of such a(ixount in addition to fhe interest and XI-HC-22 3=5ET r^iNld^, ^<-ili<o, t®«nwy an^r^ra^ ^i^^ii y»^i<h••^<"^*"<^*a^^ ^*^ 200^ f^5^ W^T^T Rpri^CT^T ^RT^) ffl^<1 W^T 5^TTW ^ITO -3+ chl^Id41^ Nl^ldT ^ fe^ <Rl^<i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ^ arrears payable to the| justification for the ofcoiapensation, The Tribunal afib fhe appeUants ia fheijr uaposed penalty of R|s compensation amouiit| Tribunal ia due exercisk substaiitial question c| arises for adjudicatioi appeal beiag devoid of \ claiinaot if, in his opinion flierc is no de^ay by the employer in making payment ?r considenng fhe reasons assigned by reply to fhe show cause notice has i. 50,000/- for delay ia payment of The order has been passed by fhe of power vested m it and fhercfore no law as proposed by fhe appellaats ia fhis appeal iand accordmgly fhe ^ubstance is hercbv disinissed. Sd/- DHHtENDRA MISHRA Judge ^"--. (^^t)