Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Thathera, Prop. Of Hemant Construction son of late Baliram Saw – Appellant
Versus
Pancham Singh, son of Inderdev Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 46 of 2019 whereby the learned tribunal has directed to pay interest and penalty under section 4(A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 aggregating to Rs. 4,29,945/-.
3. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that W.C. Case No. 27 of 2011 was preferred by the sole respondent under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the appellant in the Court of learned Commissioner of Employees Compensation -cum-Labour Court, Ranchi. He submits that the accident occurred when Naxalites attacked the worksite and destroyed the machinery deployed by this appellant for construction of the project. He submits that the said accident was reported in the several newspapers. In this background he submits that the said W.C. Case was contested and award was passed on 13.05.2013 directing to pay a sum of Rs. 3,52,414/- within 60 da
The court upheld the Labour Court's order under Section 4(A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, confirming the necessity of providing opportunity and addressing delays in compensation cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the court's discretion to impose simple inter....
The court held that under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, employers cannot refuse to pay interest on compensation for delays, mandating payment of 12% interest from 30 days post-incident.
Insurer liable for statutory interest under Employees’ Compensation Act despite policy exclusion, upon timely notice.
The issue of imposing a penalty for default in paying compensation arises only after the main claim for compensation is determined by the competent Authority.
The Insurance Company is liable for interest on compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, while the employer is responsible for penalty payments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
