- (1.) None has appeared on behalf of the respondent to oppose this appeal.
(2.) This appeal has been filed against order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') vide which, for injuries suffered by the respondent, during the course of his employment, compensation amount to the tune of Rs.5,670/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was granted to him. Court below also imposed penalty, on account of non-payment of compensation amount, within the prescribed period, to the extent of 50% of the amount awarded. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court feels that in view of injury suffered, amount awarded is rather on the lower side.
(3.) Contention of counsel for the appellant that the interest has been awarded without any notice to it, is also liable to be rejected in view of ratio of the judgment in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that liability to pay interest is part and parcel of the legal liability to pay compensation and it gets automatically foisted upon the employer, on his default in payment of compensation within the stipulated period from the date when the compensation had fallen due. This appeal seems to have been admitted on a limited question, as to whether penalty can be imposed without issuance of any notice to the appellant or not? The provisions of Sub-Section 3 Section 4-A, as existed before amendment in this Section in the year 1995, came up for consideration before this Court in Smt. Rajni Rani and others Vs. Om Parkash and another, (1992-2) PLR 1 and it was held that the penalty cannot be imposed without issuance of a notice to the employer in that regard. After referring to the provisions of Section 4A of the Act, a Single Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "What was the reason for not making payment without delay can be known to that person alone who is required to make the payment and to none else. Unless, therefore, he called upon to show cause for the delayed payment, it is not reasonably possible for the Commissioner to come to the conclusion whether or not there is any justification for the delay. The Commissioner cannot be allowed to reach his satisfaction at his whim and caprice simpliciter, when an appeal is also provided against his order imposing penalty under sub section (3) of section 4-A of the Act. The Commissioner's approach has to be objective. He must record his reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for the delay in making the payment of compensation and thereby provide an opportunity to the appellate Court to see whether or not his order is justified which satisfies the test of objectivity. Where a finding of fact has been recorded without any material, the same can be challenged on a question of law. Obligation on the part of the Commissioner to hear the party adversely affected is clearly implicit in sub section (3) of section 4-A of the Act, for no one can be condemned unheard. An interpretation of sub section (3) of section 4-A of the Act, not requiring the Commissioner to hear the party adversely affected before imposing penalty against it, would be plain obnoxious." In view of ratio of the judgments referred to above, this Court feels that appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent only. Accordingly, it is ordered that the award passed by the Commissioner, to the extent of imposing penalty, stands set aside. No order as to costs. Appeal stands disposed of.;