FAO No.138 of 2009

Page 1 of 9

UNREPORTABLE

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

FAO No.138/2009

Date of Decision: April 15, 2010

U.O.I.

…..Appellant

Through Mr. A.S.Dateer, Advocate

versus

SHEELA

..... Respondent

Through None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.

Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment? No

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J.

The short question which falls for consideration in this appeal is,

whether the Commissioner under the Workmen‟s Compensation

Act, 1923 can suo-moto without reference/demand from the claimants

issue direction to the employer to deposit interest calculated @ 12%

per annum for the period of delay caused in not depositing the

compensation within one month from the date it fell due.

The facts are not in dispute. They are as under:-

One Ram Kumar was working as Gangman, G&D/DAL PTNR

with the appellant. On December 01, 2007 at about 23.40 hours while

2010:DHC:2057

FAO No.138 of 2009

Page 2 of 9

he was patrolling on the rail track between PTNR-BRSQ DN DAL

KM 18/14-12, he was run over by a goods train resulting in his death.

As his death had occurred while and in the course of his employment

with the appellant, his widow became entitled to compensation under

the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act). The appellant assessed the compensation payable to the

widow at Rs.4,00,000/- and deposited the same with the office of the

Commissioner on July 02, 2008. The Commissioner by an order

passed on November 26, 2008 has held that the compensation

deposited with him was delayed by 7 months & 2 days and hence, has

directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.28,267/- towards interest

for the delayed period calculated @ 12% per annum within 30 days

from the date of the order, failing which the appellant has been put to

notice that it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under

Section 31 of the Act. By the same order, the Commissioner has also

given notice to the appellant to show-cause why the penalty

equivalent to 50% of the compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- be

not imposed upon it for not making the payment of compensation

within the prescribed time limit.

It is the aforementioned order of November 26, 2008 which has

been assailed in the present appeal.

In so far as the latter part of the order directing the appellant to

show-cause why the penalty be not imposed upon it, the learned

counsel for the appellant stated before me that the appellant would

give appropriate reply to the same before the Commissioner and if

2010:DHC:2057

FAO No.138 of 2009

Page 3 of 9

still aggrieved he will agitate the said issue after passing of the final

order by the Commissioner. Hence, the only part of the order with

which the appellant is aggrieved is the direction to the appellant to

deposit the interest calculated at Rs.28,267/- for the delayed period.

Before I proceed to deal with the question as noticed at the

outset, it needs to be borne in mind that the Workmen‟s

Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial piece of social legislation. The

object of the Act is to provide financial assistance to those workmen

who in the course of their employment receive such injuries which

reduce their earning capacity or make them disable. In the case of

death of a workman, the Act seeks to provide financial assistance to

his dependants who are left to fend for themselves consequent upon

the death of the bread-earner of the family. Not only does the Act

provide for payment of compensation to the workman or his

dependants but it also lays down the formula how the compensation

payable is to be worked out. The relevant section in this regard is

Section 4. It needs to be reproduced in totality. This is how it runs: