c .^^ - 1 - IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEALfCI N0. /2009 (S.B.) APPELLANT N.A. 3 VERSUS ,,. Navin Tyagi s/o Mahendra Singh ^ Tyagi, aged about 40 years, R/o House No. 5 State Bank Colony, Kundan Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS J.9^. ^'^y " ^. 'vfs^ ^--y Applicants N.A.1 N.A.2 N.A.4 N.A.5 <-.); ^ N.A.6 1. Meena Bai wd/o late Jageshwar, aged about 28 years. Yashpal Sahu s/o Late Jageshwar, aged about 8 years. Nagendra Sahu s/o late Jageshwar, aged about 6 years. 4. Yuvaraj Sahu, s/o late Jageshwar, •''' aged about 3 years. Respondent no. 2, 3 85 4 are minor through mother Meena Bai All R/o Borai, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil SE District Durg (C.G.) 5..- Mithlesh Kumar s/o Nand Lal ^ Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o ACC Colony, Block No. 18, Qtr. No. T.R.T./F 212 Jamul, BhUai, District Durg (C.G.) ,6. Tamijul Hasan s/o Sabadul Hasan, R/o near new Mandir, Street No.l, Kasaridih, District Durg (C.G.) 7. Ashok Kum.ar Singh R/o house No. 3, Amair Bihar, Street No. 7, near Shatabdi Nagar, Raipur; at present residing at H.I.G. 124, Borsi P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.). -' 8. 9. /' R.C. Surana, R/o Bhilwara Tower, Plot No. A-12, Sector-1, Noida (U.P.) at present residing at HIG Limited Indusrial Growth, Centre Borai, village Rasmura, Dista-ict Durg (C.G.) P.L. Somani Add1'tional Vice President, HIG Limited Industrial Growth Centre Borai, village Rasmura, District Durg (C.G.j. 'a?i N.A.7 'w. A- 1Q Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch No.Ol Bhutani Complex, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OFWORKSMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 ^^MiKBiBHiiiisG»RH^ ®II..ASPUR SSSSiSBi SJN<?ISEBEN<3t-l:HON'Bl.E^IR.G.MINHAJUDDIN.J. M.A.(C)No.13780F 2009 Navin Tyagi Vs Aep^ltant N.A.3 Respondents Meena Bai and others Present: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, coufi^l for the appellant. Mr. P.R. Patankar, counsel fdr respondents No.1 to 4. >th ORDER (Oral) (9mSeptember,2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, in Case No. 162/WC Act Fatal/2007, whereby and whereunder penalty of Rs.30,000/- has been imposed on the appellant/employer for not depositing the amount of compensation within the stipulated time. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.2007 Jogeshwar Sahu, was doing the night duty in H.E.G. Factory, Borai, Rasmada. However, accidentally he caught fire while working in the factory ahd sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Bhilai for treatment where he died on 1.7.2007 while undergoing treatment. After the accident, the appellant/employer deposited the compensation amount of Rs.3,16,728/- beyond the prescribed period of one month and the compensation deposited by the appellant was also on lower side. Therefore, the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Durg (in short "the Commissioner") for enhancement of the compensation amount along with penalty and interest. • 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the impugried award. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties are not in dispute on the point that before imposing penalty on the appellant/employer ^ z under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act"), no oppori:unity for showing cause was given by the Commissioner to the appellant, which is mandatory as per proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act. 5. The present appeal filed by the appellant is confined to the question of imposition of penalty. As both the counsels agreed that opportunity to show cause, as envisaged under proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act was not given to the appellant and the same is also apparent from perusal of the impugned award, therefore, the impugned award, so far as it relates to imposition of penalty, cannot be sustained in view of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and the same deserves to be set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner in Case No. 162/WC Act Fatal/2007, so far as it relates to imposition of penalty under proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, is set aside. However, the impugned award, so far as it relates to grant ofcompensation, is herebyconfirmed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner with a direction to decide it afresh so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, after affording opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence, filing documents etc. The Commissioner shall dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 7. It is necessary to' bring this fact to the notice of the Commissioner that awarding of interest on the compensation amount is mandatory under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, which has not been done. It is also made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case by this Court, so far as awarding of interest and imposition of penalty is concerned. 8. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on^^2^_ September2011. Sd/- G.MinhajJudin Judge V41 '^3