The court clarified that under the Employee's Compensation Act, entitlement to interest begins from the date of the accident, and appeals against refusals of interest and penalty are maintainable.

1. The present is an appeal by the claimants under S.30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 27.5.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation - cum - Labour Court, Janjgir Champa in Case No. 6 / WCA / CoC - lB / 2012 (F - Claim). Vide the said impugned award, on a claim application filed by the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Premlal Kenwat, who met with an accidental death on 7.5.2008 while he was working as driver of tractor belonging to respondent Nos. 1A to 1D, bearing registration No. CG 11 - A 4462 and was earning Rs.4,000 per month as salary, the Commissioner, ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.4,23,580.

2. While passing the said award, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of grant of penalty and have also not granted interest from the date of accident or from the date of application, but has granted interest from the date of award till the amount is finally deposited before the court. It is this award which has been challenged by the claimants through the present appeal.

3. The contention of the appellants is that the Commissioner has erred inasmuch as in not granting interest as well as penalty which is otherwise legally payable to the claimants as per S.4 - A of the Act.

4. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner has committed an error of law in providing interest only from the date of award and not from the date of accident or the date on which the application for claim was filed.

5. The other substantial question of law is whether the court below has committed an error of law in denying the penalty to the claimants in the factual matrix of the case.

6. The facts so far as the accident, the resultant death of Premlal, the tractor involved in the accident belonging to one late Fulsai Chandra whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1A to 1D and the tractor not being insured at the relevant point of time are not in dispute. The award of payment of compensation also not has been subjected to challenge by the employer / owner of the tractor. Hence, the only issue which remains to be considered is whether the denial of interest and penalty to the claimants vide the said impugned award was proper, legal or justified for which aforesaid two substantial questions of law have been framed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1A to 1D, Mr. M.D. Sharma, opposing the appeal took a solitary stand that the appeal was not maintainable under S.30 of the Act. According to him, S.30 of the Act does not provide for preferring an appeal against the order refusing interest or penalty as is clear from S.30 (1) (aa) of the Act. According to Mr. Sharma S.30 provides for certain orders alone which are appealable and in the said provisions, the order refusing grant of interest and penalty does not reflect, whereas, sub-section (1) (aa) of S.30 provides for an appeal against an order awarding interest or penalty which by itself mean that refusal of interest and penalty is non - appealable. Therefore, the present appeal being not maintainable, prayed for its rejection relying upon the judgment passed by a single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Bai v. Kishanlal , 1991 ACJ 615 (Madhya Pradesh). According to him, this judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court squarely applies in the present case.

8. Having heard the rival contentions put forth on either side, this court proceeds to decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal first as raised by the counsel for the respondents.

9. F