Ms Chief Engineer Dams Water Resources Department Punjab Vs Commissioner Employees Compensation Gurdaspur and Others

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P- 6) passed by the respondent No.2-the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pathankot, whereby respondent No. 3 has been held entitled to interest @18% per annum instead of 12% per annum.

¶15

Learned State counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Gurdaspur, vide award dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1), awarded compensation of Rs. 2,43,994/along with interest @12% per annum to respondent No.3, from the date of the accident till realization. It was further directed that if the awarded amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, interest would be payable @18% per annum. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the award and sought extension of time for depositing the amount. Although the

¶16

request was allowed, the certified copy of the award and the subsequent

¶17

RITIKA 2026.07.18 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 13080 of 2026 -2-

¶19

order were received only on 16.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the entire awarded amount of Rs. 4,48,949/- (including compensation and interest @12%) on 14.03.2018, within one month of receiving the certified copy. Despite receiving the entire amount, respondent No. 3 filed an application seeking enhancement of interest to 18%, which was allowed by respondent No. 2 through the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, which it is contended, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner had acted bona fide and there was no deliberate or wilful delay in making the payment, as the amount was deposited promptly after receipt of the certified copy of the award. Therefore, there was no valid reason to enhance the rate of interest from 12% to 18%. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that respondent No. 3 had already received the entire compensation along with interest @12% as awarded. Moreover, the issues were also not correctly framed while deciding the application. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶20

I have heard learned State counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

¶21

A perusal of the record shows that respondent No. 1, vide award dated 27.04.2017, held that it was not in dispute that respondent No. 3 suffered injuries during the course of his employment. The respondent no.1Commissioner, after a cumulative conspectus of the facts of the case & the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,43,994/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of the accident till realization, with a direction that if the said amount was not deposited within the prescribed period, interest would be payable @18% per annum. The order remained unchallenged by the official respondents. Upon the failure of the official RITIKA 2026.07.18 11:29 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentrespondents in honouring the terms of the Award, respondent No.3 moved an Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No. 13080 of 2026 -3-

¶23

application before the appropriate authority. Thereupon, respondent no.2, while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, recorded that the petitioner had neither complied with the award dated 27.04.2017, nor with the subsequent order dated 23.06.2017, granting further time for deposit of the compensation amount. The plea raised by the petitioner regarding late receipt of the certified copy of the award was also not supported by the record. It was thereupon that respondent No. 2 directed payment of interest @18% per annum, as stipulated in the Award dated 27.04.2017.

¶24

The petitioner has failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25