JUDGMENT :

S.N. Phukan, C.J. - In Misc. Appeal No. 355 of 1992 a learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the following two questions arising out of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act') for our decision':

(1) Whether insurer can be made liable for interest and penalty under the Act notwithstanding absence of specific provision therefore in the Act and stipulation in the policy issued by the insurer?

(2) Whether levy of penalty is automatic or the insurer is entitled to an opportunity to show that levy of penalty is not warranted, even if it is held that insurer is liable?

In the other appeals, only the first question has been referred.

2. The necessity for making the present references to this Full Bench arose as a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Matias Burla 1986 ACJ 732 (Orissa), held that u/s 4A, the insurer is not liable to pay either penalty or interest; but the decision of the learned Single Judge was not accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Khirod Nayak Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Others, .

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. We may now extract below the relevant sect