The Employees' Insurance Court can award interest on belated compensation payments, and the E.S.I. Corporation's challenge lacked substantive merit regarding jurisdiction and time frame for the disbursal of interest.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The appellant-Employee's State Insurance Corporation ("E.S.I." for short) has filed these appeals under Section 82(2) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the impugned judgment and awards dated 20.5.2004 and 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I. Application Nos. 5 of 2003, 6 of 2003, 20 of 2003, 19 of 2003, 8 of 2003, 9 of 2003, 10 of 2003, 11 of 2003, 13 of 2003, 12 of 2003, 14 of 2003, 15 of 2003 17 of 2003, 16 of 2003, 18 of 2003, 25 of 2003 and 52 of 2002 passed by Employee's Insurance Court, Vadoara ("E.I. Court" for short) whereby, the E.I. Court directed E.S.I. Corporation to pay 12% interest to the original claimants from the date of the disability considered by Special Medical Board with cost of Rs.200/-.

2. In view of the fact that identical issue involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment by treating First Appeal No.1400 of 2005 as lead matter. In the said lead matter being Special Civil Application No.1400 of 2005, the appellant has prayed for below mentioned reliefs:-

"9 (a) Your Lordships may quash and set aside the judgment and order of paying interest and cost passed by Ld. E.I. Court Vadodara in ESI application No.5 of 2003 dated 20.5.2004.

(b) Your Lordships may direct Ld. E.I. Court not to pass payment of interest in such cases in which the payment disablement benefits has been regulated as per the provisions of Regulation 76A of the ESI Act, 1948.

(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this first appeal.

(d) Your Lordships may pass just and proper order/s that may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. The facts giving rise to present appeals are that the insured claimants-respondents herein suffered from the disease namely Silicosis during their employment with M/s. Alembic Glass and therefore, the Special Medical Board awarded disability of 0% to 10% during the year 1985-1987 and accordingly, all the claimants of present appeals are being paid the permanent disability benefits.

3.1 Thereafter, the appeals preferred before MAT in the year 1996-2000 almost after 11-13 years and MAT under Section 54A has awarded enhanced disability to the claimants ranging from 10-80%. The same were challenged before E.I. Court in 2001, which was confirmed / modified to the extent of 60-80% disability, on the basis of the judgment and order dated 26.10.1999 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 3449 of 1999.

3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and awards of the E.I. Court, the claimants preferred First Appeals before this Court and the same were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2002 by enhancing the disability to 100%. On the basis of the said judgment, benefits have been released to the claimants. Thereafter, the claimants filed E.S.I. Applications before E.I. Court claiming interest on balance amount paid belatedly in the year 2003.

3.3 The E.I. Court after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed impugned judgment and awards granting 12% interest on the belated payment from the date of award passed by the Medical Board.

3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and awards, the appellant E.S.I. Corporation has preferred present group of appeals.

4. Heard Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Subramaniam Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.

5. Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appeals deserve consideration, as the appeals were already admitted by this Court vide common order dated 8.3.2006 and interim relief was also granted by this Court on condition of deposit of awarded amount.

5.1 Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of E.S.I.C. vs. Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai Parmar , 2007 1 GLR 879 and urges that if the substantial question of law is not framed at the ti