Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Nirmala etc. Vs Jagdish etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Punjab & Haryana HC
2025
Nirmala etc. Vs Jagdish etc.Nirmala etc. v. Jagdish etc.

Dismissed¶¶13

Nirmala etc. v. Jagdish etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2025FAO/3682/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-3682-1999 | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Justice Pankaj Jain | 19.09.2024 | Nirmala v. Jagdish | Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 / Employees Compensation Act 1923 | Commissioner Rohtak | Section 4-A penalty | compensation Rs.83,950 | penalty Rs.4,200 (5%) | interest Rs.40,300 | enhancement of penalty sought | dismissed for non-prosecution | liberty to seek revival.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal for non-prosecution, with liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal, if need be. ¶¶13

Why is it important?

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶¶13

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal for non-prosecution, with liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal, if need be.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 5% penalty awarded by the Commissioner under Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was inadequate and should be enhanced.

Ratio / Principle

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal, if need be.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J.), FAO-3682-1999, decided 19.09.2024. Claimant-appellants (Nirmala and others) appealed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rohtak (now the Employees Compensation Act, 1923), which granted compensation of Rs.83,950/-, penalty of Rs.4,200/- (5%) under Section 4-A and interest of Rs.40,300/-; the appeal sought enhancement of the penalty as inadequate. Counsel for the appellants could not contact his clients despite repeated efforts; the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to seek revival, if need be. No precedents cited; the merits were not decided.

A

[104] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

FAO-36 8 2-1999 Date of D ecision : 19.09.2024

Nirmala a nd others …Appellants

versus

Jagdish a n d another ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advoca t e for the appellants. Mr. Vipul Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advoca t e for respondent No.2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commiss i oner under the Workmen’s Co m pensation Act, 1923, Rohtak ( n ow known a s Employees Compensation Ac t , 1923). Appellants were gra n ted compens a tion of Rs.83,950/-. Penalty of Rs.4200/- was awarded u n der Section 4 -A of the Workmen’s Com p ensation Act and an amount of Rs.40,30 0 /- on account of interest on the compensation amount. Appell a nts approach e d this Court seeking enhancem e nt of the penalty, claiming that 5% penalty a w arded by the Commissioner w a s inadequate.

[2] On the last date, counsel f o r the appellants was asked to get instructio n s with respect to execution of the award and to seek instructions whether t h e awarded amount has been re c eived or not.

FAO-3682-1999 -2-

[3] Today, counsel for the appe l lants submits that despite repe a ted efforts, h e could not contact his clients.

[4] Dismissed for non prosecuti o n. [5] However, liberty is granted to the appellant to seek reviva l , if need be.

(PANKAJ JAIN) 19.09.20 2 4 JUDGE ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.20 22:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the 5% penalty awarded by the Commissioner under Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was inadequate and should be enhanced.¶¶9

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Workmen’s Co **m** pensation Act, 1923¶¶9 4-A¶¶9
Employees Compensation Act, 1923Employees Compensation Ac **t** , 1923¶¶9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award/order of the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.83,950/-, penalty of Rs.4200/- (5%) under Section 4-A and interest of Rs.40,300/- on the compensation amount; the appeal sought enhancement of the penalty as inadequate.¶¶9
Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rohtak
Prior proceeding
On the last date of hearing, counsel for the appellants was asked to obtain instructions regarding execution of the award and whether the awarded amount had been received.¶¶10
Prior proceeding
On the day of disposal, counsel for the appellants submitted that he could not contact his clients despite repeated efforts.¶¶12

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Nirmala and others¶¶3
Manav Dhull, Ramesh Hooda
respondent
Jagdish and another¶¶5
Vipul Kumar, Ravinder Arora

Coram

AI extract

Pankaj Jainauthor¶¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
Decided on: 9 Dec 2025 · December
Registered: 22 Dec 1999
Case no.: FAO/3682/1999
CNR: PHHC010372231999
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: FAO

All orders in this case

2 orders share this CNR

19 Sept 2024Order 1 · Pankaj Jain
9 Dec 2025Order 2 — this page · Pankaj Jain

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pankaj Jain

(O&M)E.S.I.C. Vs M/S Metlex Private Ltd.
8 Dec 2025
Gurbani Bal Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.
8 Dec 2025
Lakshmi etc. Vs Sohan Kumar etc.
8 Dec 2025
Anil and Anr. Vs Ram Karan
9 Dec 2025
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs Sukhdev Singh Jagdev
9 Dec 2025
Bhagwan Dass Vs Bhoop Singh and Others
9 Dec 2025

Cite this judgement

Nirmala etc. v. Jagdish etc., FAO/3682/1999 (P&H), decided on 9 December 2025.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Workmen’s Co **m** pensation Act, 1923 · 4-A
Employees Compensation Act, 1923Employees Compensation Ac **t** , 1923

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Award/order of the Commissioner granting compensation of Rs.83,950/-, penalty of Rs.4200/- (5%) under Section 4-A and interest of Rs.40,300/- on the compensation amount; the appeal sought enhancement of the penalty as inadequate.Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rohtak
On the last date of hearing, counsel for the appellants was asked to obtain instructions regarding execution of the award and whether the awarded amount had been received.
On the day of disposal, counsel for the appellants submitted that he could not contact his clients despite repeated efforts.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Pankaj Jain

Parties & counsel