The Bench disposed of an appeal against an award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court upheld the Commissioner's order directing payment within 30 days with 9% interest, finding no justification for penalty without prior notice and dismissing the appeal.
Award maintained in full; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
FAO No.992 of 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.992 of 1991 Date of Decision.05.03.2014
Smt. Usha Rani and others
......Appellants
Versus
Prem Singh and another
......Respondents
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
judicial adjudication and it cannot be said that it was admitted liability. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.07 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
FAO No.992 of 1991
-2-
The Commissioner who determined the compensation, therefore, was justified in directing the amount to be paid within 30 days and on failure to pay interest @ 9%. There could not be a direction for penalty without giving prior notice to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. There was surely no contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents to make the respondents liable for penalty. Although an argument was made by the respondents that the appeal itself was not maintainable under Section 30(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, I will not find any such bar as operating against the workman. Section 30 contemplates the grounds on which appeal can be preferred and the appeal is possible also against the imposition of interest and penalty. This must be understood in such a way that even want of provision for interest and penalty could be a ground for an appeal. Either way, the appeal was maintainable but in this case I find that there was no justification for imposition of any imposition or interest other than the manner in which the Commissioner has already provided.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
March 05, 2014 Pankaj*
Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.07 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in directing interest at 9% per annum for delayed payment without penal provisions prior to the filing of the compensation petition.
Whether the appeal against the award of compensation was maintainable under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act notwithstanding the absence of specific grounds for interest or penalty in the
Whether the driver's death during employment constituted death in the course of employment for the purpose of compensation.
Smt. Usha Rani and others
Prem Singh and another
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
