IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9924 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:07.03.2011 Simla Devi and another ....Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is by the widow and a minor son of a deceased workman. They were the claimants and had secured compensation of Rs.26,725.20 paise for the death of a person, who was an employee in the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was a linesman and died during the course of employment. 2. The award was passed on 17.09.1988 and in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, there was a provision for an appeal under Section 30 within a period of 60 days. Section 30(3) subsequently provides that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The appeal should have been normally filed within 60 days from the date of receipt Civil Writ Petition No.9924 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - of the copy of the award dated 17.09.1989. Instead of preferring the appeal, a writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227. I find the office returned the writ petition with the query as to how the petition was maintainable and the Court on a representation by the petitioners that the intervention was possible under Article 226, the writ petition has been numbered and subsequently admitted. 3. In my view, the writ petition was not competent since there was an efficacious remedy under Section 30. At this length of time, however, I will not dispose it of as not maintainable but dispose of the writ petition treating it as an appeal, for, there is no additional requirement of any Court's fee for the same. The writ petition, which is treated as an appeal, is disposed of as under. 4. The point urged in paragraph 6 is that Section 4A mandates the levy of interest from the date when it fell due and the award passed without grant of interest is against the provisions of the Act. Notice of motion in the writ petition had been ordered on 28.08.1989 and subsequently admitted on 22.01.1990 by a Division Bench of this Court. I would understand the case to raise following question of law:- Whether the claimant would be entitled to interest on the amount determined by the Tribunal under Section 4A from the date when the compensation fell due. 5. While deciding the issue relating to the levy of interest, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has held that there had been a genuine dispute with regard to the names of the real claimants of the deceased workman Gurcharan Singh. The Commissioner found that Civil Writ Petition No.9924 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - there was no possibility for the employer to know that the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased and that was possible only through the adjudication rendered by the Commissioner himself. It was also brought out in the order that the first claimant namely the widow had not made known the respondents her own status as the widow, who was entitled to the claim for compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the circumstances justified that the liability could be taken as arising only through the order. I cannot wholly accept this line of reasoning. The fact of death in the course of employment itself was not an issue. The accident, resulting in death, had taken place when the deceased in the course of employment was proceeding to Patiala along with his supervisor Rajinder Kumar in the department truck bearing No.PUV- 9072 for bringing back the dismantled copper to control stores, Patiala. The brakes had failed and the truck collided with yet another truck. The accident was clearly in the course of employment and the FIR had been lodged immediately by the his own superior, who was travelling along with the deceased. The liability to compensate the legal heirs, therefore, arose on the same day when the accident was known to the employer. Even in the reply filed by the employer, they admitted the first applicant Simla Devi as the widow of the workman, but they had only denied that Bhupinder Singh, the second claimant, was not known to be the son of the deceased. It is irrelevant that they did not know the status of the son of the first claimant, for, the liability to make the payment of what is payable under the Act arose on the same day when the accident took place and when the supervisor reported the fact of accident to the police. Civil Writ Petition No.9924 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - The payment to the widow would have constituted a complete discharge and the amount was not shown to have been deposited in spite of the admission of the petitioners' entitlement. The respondents were, therefore, liable to pay interest statutorily protected at 12% from the date when it fell due namely on the date of accident when the employer knew that the deceased workman had died in the course of employment i.e. from 10.04.1987 to the date when the amount of Rs.26,725.20 paise was actually paid under the award of the Commissioner. Since the case is being disposed of only now, the further accumulations of interest on the interest component alone will be worked out till date of payment. 6. Since there is no representation for the petitioners, order copy is directed to be despatched to the 1st petitioner directly by the Registry at the address given in the memo of parties. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.03.2011 sanjeev