Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Umarkha Samsherkha and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 12.5.1988 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The challenge was limited to the extent that the Commissioner had not imposed a penalty for the delay in depositing the compensation amount. The respondents were Abdul Saleem Sheikh Ismail and another. The petitioners were represented by Mr. S.T. Harkare, while no one appeared for the respondents. The court examined the provisions of Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which deals with the imposition of penalty for delayed payment of compensation. The court noted that the penalty cannot be imposed as a matter of course; it can only be imposed if the Authority records satisfaction that the delay is unjustifiable or there is no justification for the delay. In the present case, the application before the Commissioner did not contain any claim for imposition of penalty, nor was it alleged that the delay was unjustified. There was no pleading or evidence on this aspect. Consequently, the Commissioner did not impose any penalty. The High Court found no error in this approach and held that there was no reason to interfere with the order. The petition was dismissed as lacking substance, the rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Penalty for Delay - Section 4(A)(3)(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Penalty cannot be imposed as a matter of course; it requires the Authority to record satisfaction that the delay is unjustifiable. In the absence of any pleading or evidence that the delay was unjustified, the Authority is not bound to impose penalty. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order refusing penalty. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in not imposing penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for delay in depositing compensation.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923 cannot be imposed as a matter of course
- it requires satisfaction that delay is unjustifiable
- absence of pleading and evidence justifies non-imposition of penalty.
