2026:CGHC:8858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 220 of 2023 Divisional Railway Manager (S.E.C.R) South Eastern Central Railways, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) - 495001 Appellant(s)

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.20

10:53:29 +0530 versus

1 - Smt. Bina Kaushik Wd/ Late Chandrakant Kaushik R/o Vinayak Vihar D.D.U. Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492010

2 - Ku. Diksha Kausahik D/o Late. Chandrakant Kaushik R/o Vinayak Vihar, D.D.U Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) – 492010

3 - Bhupesh Kaushik F/o Late. Chandrakant Kaushik R/o Vinayak Vihar D.D.U Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) – 492010

4 - Shivkumar Kaushik F/o Tanuram R/o Vinayak Vihar D.D.U Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) – 492010

5 - Lakshmi Kaushik W/o Shiv Kumar Kaushik R/o Vinayak Vihar D.D.U Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492010 Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Resp No. 1 : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

19/02/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, an application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and not on account of any deliberate inaction or negligence. It is further submitted that the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits and that, if the delay is not condoned, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss. It is also contended that the delay was bona fide and not intentional.

3. On due consideration, I.A. No. 01/2023 is allowed. Delay in fling the appeal is condoned.

4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Railways under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 17/10/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, Labour Court No. 1, Raipur in Case No. 144/E.C. Act/2022/Fatal. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner, while allowing the claim petition preferred by the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,70,000/- in their favour and directed the non-applicant/appellant herein to deposit the said amount within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% per annum was to be payable. The non-applicant/appellant was further directed to pay 50% penalty amounting to Rs. 6,35,400/- to the claimants within the aforesaid period.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daivshala & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.. , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 748, It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an accident occurring while the employee was proceeding towards the place of work would be treated as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

6. This submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, who fairly submits that the aforesaid issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it is contended that in so far as the imposition of 50% penalty is concerned, the employer was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to passing the order of penalty.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that, so far as the award of Rs. 12,70,000/- in favour of the claimants is concerned, the same is just and proper. The finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the deceased died in the course of employment does not warrant interference and is accordingly affirmed.

8. However, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law, which arises for consideration:

“Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in imposing 50% penalty without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant?”

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the imposition o