JUDGMENT

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

The respondent no. 3 is the widow of late workman Triloki Yadav who died in an accident on 28.01.2007 in the course of his employment while he was employed with the petitioner Shri Rakesh Mahendru.

2. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, vide order dated 23.01.2008 passed an award of compensation in favour of respondent no. 3 and thereby awarded her a sum of Rs.3,32,580/- and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, was deposited by the Insurance Company (respondent no. 2 herein) on 29.01.2008 and the same was disbursed amongst the legal heirs of the deceased workman vide order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, dated 11.02.2008. Thereafter, on 12.03.2008, the widow of deceased workman (respondent no. 3) had moved an application under Section 4-A readwith Section 22(A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of interest and penalty because of default on the part of the employer in depositing the compensation amount within one month of the date of the accident. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, (respondent no. 1) disposed of the said application of respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 28.04.2009 and awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.3,32,580/- for the period of delay, i.e., for the period from 27.02.2007 till the date of deposit of compensation amount on 29.01.2008 which was quantified at Rs.36,584/-. The respondent no. 1 also awarded penalty against the petitioner @ 50% of the principal amount which was quantified at Rs.1,66,290/-. The interest awarded vide order dated 28.04.2009 was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company (respondent no. 2) and the penalty amount was ordered to be paid by the employer (petitioner herein). It is aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the award of penalty and interest inter alia on the ground that since the amount of compensation adjudicated by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, vide order dated 23.01.2008 was promptly deposited by the Insurance Company within five days of the adjudication on 29.01.2008, the interest and penalty under Section 4-A readwith Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 could not have been awarded by the Commissioner.

3. The operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 22.07.2009 and notice was ordered to be sent to the respondents. In response to the notice of this writ petition, an application for vacation of the interim ex parte stay order dated 22.07.2009 being CM No. 10154/2009 has been filed by respondent no. 3. In the course of hearing on this application of respondent no. 3, counsel for both the parties had agreed that the writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally at this stage itself. I, therefore, heard the counsel for both the parties in the matter.

4. Ms. Pratima Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It was contended by her that since a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order is provided in Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioner could not have filed the present writ petition by-passing the statutory remedy which mandates him to deposit the impugned award amount as a condition precedent for filing of the appeal.

5. Ms. Pratima Chaudhary had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Phuli Devi Versus Shri Jawahar Singh and Others, [LPA No. 54/2009, Decided on 17.03.2009] in support of her argument against the maintainability of the present writ petition. Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had no answer to the objection against the maintainability urged on behalf of respondent no. 3