The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 4-A (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which mandates the payment of interest on compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date it fell due.

U. C. MAHESHWARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 8. 10. 2001 passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Labour Court no. 1, Jabalpur (in short 'the Commissioner')in Case No. 27/98/fatal. The M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 is initiated at the instance of the claimants for granting interest and penalty on the amount of compensation as ordered while M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 has been preferred for setting aside the award at the instance of the employer Divisional railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP ).

( 2 ) THE appellants of M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 have been impleaded as respondents in M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 and respondents of aforesaid former appeal are appellants in the latter appeal and they are called in this order as claimants and employer.

( 3 ) THE husband of claimant No. 1 and father of other claimants, namely, late Lal khan, was employed as gang-man under the employment of the said respondent employer and on the date of incident dated 18. 4. 1997, he was posted at Damoh and during the course of duty he was discharging his official functions at Makroniya railway Station. At about 7. 30 in the evening due to some altercation with the official of the department he got cardiac pain and consequently he died. Such death took place during the course of the employment while discharging the official duty. All claimants being legal representatives and dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation under Workmen's Compensation act. Deceased employee was aged 38 years on the date of incident and was getting salary Rs. 2,000 per month. Thus, claim was preferred under section 3 of the Act for Rs. 1,89,560.

( 4 ) IN reply of employer, it was denied that deceased Lal Khan died during the course of employment while discharging the official duty. It is also pleaded that death of Lal Khan has not taken place during employment and discharging the official duty, no incident has taken place as mentioned by the claimants. The incident of altercation with other official has also been denied. The claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, has framed the issues and recorded evidence of respective parties. On appreciation of evidence the Commissioner held that the deceased was an employee and suffered heart attack during the course of discharging the official duty and died. His age was found to be 45 years. Deceased was getting rs. 1,900 per month and by saddling the liability for compensation against the employer ordered to pay Rs. 1,06,968 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application, i. e. , 19. 6. 1998 and interest from the date of the death and penalty have not been awarded to claimants, hence the claimants have filed appeal for imposing penalty and awarding interest as provided under section 4-A of the said Act, while the employer has filed appeal for setting aside the aforesaid impugned order passed by Commissioner.

( 6 ) MR. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for employer in M. A. No. 1805 of 2001, has submitted that in view of the evidence available on record, although deceased was an employee of the employer but at the time of death he was not discharging any official function as such he was not on duty. According to his submission, death of Lal Khan has not taken place because of any accident during the course of the employment in discharge of the duty. He died on aforesaid date at 7. 20 p. m. while his duty was to begin from 7. 30 to 11. 30 a. m. , as per his submission after lunch the deceased did not turn up for duty and before duty hours he was found dead. So employer was not responsible to indemnify the claim as filed by claimants.

( 7 ) HE further submitted that the instant appeal has been filed on two substantial questions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document