IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.522 of 2007 1. Vide Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. PUSA, District-Samastipur. 2. The Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. PUSA, District- Samastipur. Versus Most.Munakiya Devi, W/o Late Dorik Ray, r/o Village Harpur, PUSA, P.O. + P.S.- PUSA, District Samastipur. ----------- 5 21.4.2009 Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, counsel for the appellant in support of the contention raised in the memo of appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 8.8.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Begusarai awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,22,867/- with effect from 5.10.1998 along with interest at the rate of 12%. Counsel for the appellant-University would contend that as a matter of fact, the workman in question did not die on duty or by meeting any accident and as such, there would be no liability of payment of compensation in terms of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. This aspect of the matter has been gone into by the Labour Court which after looking into all possible evidence has recorded a 2 findings of fact in paragraph no.24 relevant portion of which reads as follows:- ^^iw.kZ foospuk ds vkyksd esa eSa bl fu’d’kZ ij igwWprk gwW fd fn0 5-10-98 dks e`rd 4 cts vijkgu ls 12 cts jkf= okyh ikyh esa vkos0 lk0 la0 2 ls izHkkj ysdj drZXO;k:<+ gqvk Fkk vkSj fu;kstu ds dze esa gh mls dk;kxr vkarfjd {kfr;kW gqbZ Fkh ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i fpfdRld ds fDyfud ij mldh e`R;q gks x;h Abu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd nq?kZVuk] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i e`rd f”koth jk; dh e`R;q gqbZ Fkh] fci{kh ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku ,oa fu;kstu ds dze esa gqbZ FkhaA vr% okn&foUnq la0 3 ldkjkRed vkosfndk ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** Once the aforementioned findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court becomes unassailable, the legal jargon of the University that as a matter of fact the Act does not contemplate a person meeting death on account of heart-attack on duty has to be only noted for its being rejected. Section 3 of the Act leaves nothing for this Court to even speculate that the death in any form on duty attributable as an accident will have to be compensated and that is what protection is given to a workman under the Act. Once this aspect of the matter becomes clear, the next issue of the payment of interest raised by the appellant has to be again only noticed for its 3 being rejected because this Court in the earlier round of this very litigation had remitted the matter back after setting aside the earlier order. The amount, so deposited by the appellants in the Court on an earlier occasion therefore, ought to have not been withdrawn by the University because the matter was still pending before the Labour Court. Obviously, if the appellant, University had withdrawn the amount and now when the University has been found to be liable to pay the compensation, it would be quite logical for the Labour Court to also award interest from the date of accident to the date of payment. The amount with interest, at the rate of 12%, in the above noted circumstance does not seem to be either excessive or illegal and infact is in keeping with the provisions of the Act. That being so, this Court would find no flaw in the impugned award and accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, must be and is hereby dismissed. It goes without saying that if the amount has already been deposited by the 4 University, the same must be paid to the claimants and if any payment thereof still remains unpaid, the concerned Labour Court will ensure that the amount gets paid by the University within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)