HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. APPEAL No. 224/2002 APPELLANT M/S. Garuda Transport (P) Ltd. , through Manager, omcer Inchaxge, Gcvra Projsct, Tahsil: Katghora, Distt. Korba (Chhnttisgarh). ‘ Vexsus RESPOHDENT 1. Budhm' Khalkho, W/o Somam Aypeuant. Khalkho, aged about 50 yeals, R/o ‘ Village Eitahapur, Post: Asmajinkpani, Distt. Sinhabhumi N¢n Applicant No. 2 (West-Bihar) Presently residing at I thmugh Lakhokhalko P.M. QM. Company, Junadih, Tahsil: Katghora, Distt. Korba. _ 2. Ex. -Sexvice Man —Yuvxaj Transport Pvt. Limited, Kusmunda, through ‘ - Chief Executive O$cer, Kusmunda, New India Insumnce Co. Ltd., through the Branch Manager, Sadar Complex, ’I‘Iansport Nagar Korba, Distt. Korba. APPEAL UNDER SEC'I‘ON 30 OF WORKMAN COMPENSATInN ACT, 1923. r Distt. Korba. (BB :Hon’ble.Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:~ Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 8s 2. ORAL- JUDGEMENT (Passed on 29/06/2010) 1. By this appeal under Section 3O of the Workman Compensau'on Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’)‘ appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31/ 1/02 passed by commissioner, Workman Compensation, Bilaspur (in short ‘Comnn'ssionm in case No. 13/W-C.A/97 (F) Claim, whereby learned Commissioner has awaided Rs. 22 13701- along with interest of 12% per annum and penalty of Rs. 100000/- be deposited 1n the State ’h‘easuiy. Present appellant has challenged the compensation of the penalty. ‘Bn'ef facts necessary for disposal of this appcal is as per pleading of the parh’es deceased lakhan Khalkho died on account of accident on ‘24/ 11/95. His legal Iepxesentatives %d petition for compensation ibefom the Commissioner on 22/11/97. During pendency of the jpetition father of the Lakhan Khalkho (one of the claimant died on f18/3/0 1) while allowing the petition Commissioner has also imposed H} penalty of Rs. 100000] - upon the appellant and directed to pay such penalty to the Government. Learned counsel for the parties axe heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has deposited only penalty part and submits that in terms of Sections 4A and 10A of the Act, Commissioner was not competent to impose penalty providing the opportunity of hearing and explaining to the appellant. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondent N0. 3 opposed the appeal. In cider to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have examined the record of the Commissioner. In the present case judgment reveals that Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 100000] - on account of late payment of compensation and has directed to deposit the same to the Government. In the present case as per judgment appellant is liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. In case of any other liability including the imposing of the penalty the Commissioner was under obligation to provide an opportunity of hearing and explaining v I to the appellant before imposing any penalty but admittedly, Commissioner has not provided any opportlmity to the appellant. In all circumstances imposing of penalty of any kind is not necessary WET’M and Commissioner is mquiwd to impose the penalty in only suitable cases. Considering the grave fault and misconduct of the present liability to pay the compensation. In the pmsent case, l do not find any case of such fault. Consequently, order relating to imposing of penalty Rs. 100000] - is not sustainable under the law. 7. 1 For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. Order imposing penalty of Rs. 100000] - payable to the State Govt. is hereby aset —aside. Penalty paid to the State Govt. shall be refunded to the appellant. Sd/- ' T. P. Sharma Judge W