mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH ATBILASPUS MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 1552/2008 APPBLLANT DEFBNDAiyT RESPONDENT Sub-Area Manager, DLH, SGLLBGD, Sub-Area, Dhelwadih, Singhali, Sought Eastem Coal Fields Limited, Korba Area (CG) Versus Mahetarin Bai, W/o Late Shivbhagat, aged about 54 years 2. Jamuna Bai, W/o Late Shivbhagat, aged about 32 years 3. Smt. Bodhin Bai, W/o Late Uchit, aged about 86 vears 4. Ku. Laxmi D/o. Late Shivbhagat, aged about 15 years 5. Ku. Annapiima D/o Late Shivbhagat, aged about 13 years 6. Lokesh Kiimar S/o Late Shivbhagat, aged about 8 years AU respondents No. 1 to 6 are resident of Quarter No. 100/53, Shaiiti Nagar, Banki Site, P.0. Batnki Mongra, District Korba (CG) 7. Coiumissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Coiirt, Korba Distt. Korba (CGj !;- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. with Shri Dilip Dubey, Adv. for the Shri Amiyakant Tiwari with Shri Brajesh Singh, for fhe ;s s No. 1 to 6. ORAL ORDER (18-3-2010) ^J 1. This is emplo^'er's appeal agaiiist the order dated 24-9-2008 passed in Case No. 64/WC.Act/OSF by fhe Coinmissioner for Workman Compensation, Labour Coixrt, Korba (for short, the Commissioner') whereby leamed Commissioner has awarded Rs. 1 lac as penalty agaiast fhe appellant under Sec. 4A of tiie Workmen's Compensation Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as fhe Acf). 2. Pacts ofthe case in brief are as luider:- 3. Deceased Shivbhagat died in an accident on 28-4-2008 arisiag out of and in the course of employment. of the appellant. The appellant did not give any notice zmder Section 10-B of the Act to fhe Commissioner and deposited the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 2,42,100/- with the Conimissioner after a period of 3 months. 4. Leamed Comiaissioner on an appreciation of fhe evidence led, niaterial placed and submissions made, held fhat the appeUant was not justified in depositing the amount of compensation after a lapse of 3 inonths and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lac under Section 4A of the Act. 5. Dr. Shukla, learned Sr. Counsel for the appeUant would contend that the said accident took place m the area wbich is out side fhe premises of fhe appellant/SECL and, fherefore, Section 10-B of the Act has no application aad the appeUaat is not required to give any notice to the Cominissioner withtn a ^seriod of 7 days of the accident. He would further contend fhat due to ofiicial foraaalities, since fhe file has to move from one office to other, the said delay had occurred in depositing fhe amount of compensation which is unintentional and bona&de and, therefore, leamed Commissioner was not justified in awarding penalty against the appeUaiit and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the Tespondents supported the order and submitted that in fhe facts and circuiastances of fhe case, suice the delay occiiTred was deliberate, leamed CoDimissioner has rightly awarded fhe penalty aad the sarae deserves to be upheld. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the order iiuougned and the record of the Coirrt below. 8. Indisputably the compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant within a period of 3 monfhs. It is also not in dispute that as per sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, the compensation amount has to be deposited with. the L Commissioner wifhm a period of one month from the date it feU due. In fhe instant case, since the accident was wifhln the knowledge of the appellant, therefore, indisputably, the amount of coiapensation feU due on the date of accident and fhe appeUant was obliged to deposit the same wifh the Coiaiaissioner wifhin a period of one monfh from fhe date of accident. The appellant in his reply to show cause notice as to why penalty be not unposed, had stated that some delay has occiirred due to departmental procedure which is required to verify the fact of acddent and entitlement of compensation and is iinintentional and bona&de. 9. As per Section 3(b) of Section 4A of the Act, if in the optnion of fhe Commissioner, fhe delay in payment of compensation is not justi&ed, fhen he shaU, tn addition to fhe amount of arrears and interest tfaereon, pay furfher suin not exceedinj 50% of such amount by way of penalty. 10. A bare readtng of the aforesaid provision would reveal that on the reasons assigned by fhe einployer, if fhe Commissioner is satisfied that the reasons are justified fhen it is not obligatory on fhe Cominissioner to award penalty. 11. ta the instant case, it appears (hat learned Commissioner has even not dealt with fhe reasons assigned by the appeUant in reply to the notice to show cause. The appellant is a public undertaking and no person includin^ the oflicer-in-charge has personal interest tn the matter and they have nothing to gain in withholding fhe payment. At the same ttme, it is also tnte law that a public undertaldng is not justified in delaying payment under the pretext of time taken in departmental procedure and to violate fhe statutory provisions. Betng a public undertakuig, duties^is more onerous to adhere to the Itmitation prescribed under the statute. 12. Taking into consideration the overall circi.unstances of tfae case and taking into consideration the fact fhat the appeUant has assigned cause of delay which appears ,to be W_@'— <,.y-^ X ^, ^ unintentional and bonafide, in the considered opmion of this Court, the award of penalty to fhe extent of Rs. 1 lac is whoUv uawarranted and deserves to be set aside and instead, fhe clamiants are entitled for award ofpenalty to fhe extentofRs. 20,000/-. 13 . For the foregoiag, the appeal is allowed in part. The rmpugned order is modt&ed. Penalty of Rs. 1 lac is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. The Stay granted earlier stands vacated. The amount over and above Rs. 20,000/- as penalty, tf deposited by the appeUant shaH be refunded to it. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge