Himachal Pradesh High Court
Divisional Forest Officer vs Budhi Singh on 26 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)ACC227, 2006ACJ1851
Author: Deepak Gupta
Bench: Deepak Gupta
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed against the Order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh dated 28.2.1997.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are that deceased Shayam Kala who was aged about 20 years died when she was struck by stone when she was working on construction of forest line. There is no dispute also with regard to the wages of the deceased which were Rs. 45.75 per day.
3. The only dispute raised by appellant is that the penalty should not have been imposed upon appellant. The death admittedly took place on 6.10.1995. It appears that the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog, also sent some letter to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Mandi on 7.3.1996 and which was received in the office of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Karsog on 13.5.1996. Budhi Singh, father of the claimant, had also filed a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. this Court had issued direction(s) in the said case that the proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act be concluded within 6 months. Despite all these facts the amount of compensation was not deposited. The State being model employer is expected to deposit the compensation as soon as it is payable. The death was within the knowledge of the employer. The wages were also within the knowledge of the employer. The compensation should have been calculated and deposited within one month of the death under the provisions of the Act. Since the State has failed to deposit the compensation in the requisite period, the Commissioner has rightly imposed the penalty. The Order imposing the penalty calls for no interference. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision of this Court in Ram Dulari Kalia v. H.P. State Electricity Board 1987 ACJ 258 (HP).
4. While going through the award I find that amount awarded is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The wages of the deceased were admittedly Rs. 45.75 per day or Rs. 1,372.50 per month. The Commissioner has wrongly taken 40 per cent of the wages for calculating the compensation. As per the Act as it stood on the date of accident, 50 per cent of wages had to be taken into consideration. 50 per cent of the wages comes to Rs. 686.25. This has to be multiplied by the relevant factor of 224 and as such the compensation payable was Rs. 1,53,720. Under the Act the liability to pay the compensation as per the provisions of Section 4 is a statutory liability. It is the duty of the Commissioner and/or any other court which is seized of the matter to ensure that the compensation is paid strictly in accordance with the terms of the Act. In fact the Act prohibits any contract or agreement whereby a workman can relinquish his right to get compensation. Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:
17. Contracting out.Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act.
5. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Commissioner as well as the court to ensure that payment is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, even though no appeal has been filed by the claimant, the amount of compensation is being enhanced from Rs. 1,22,976 to Rs. 1,53,720, which would be in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it stood amended on 15.9.1995, i.e., prior to the accident.
6. Section 4-A (3) provides that if the compensation is not paid within 1 month, then the Commissioner should award sim pie interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum or such higher rate not exceeding the lending rate of any scheduled bank. It is thus clear that the Commissioner cannot award interest below 12 per cent per annum. The claimants are thus also held entitled to interest on the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,53,720 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 7.11.1995 till date of payment/deposit. The penalty of Rs. 61,488 is not being disturbed.
7. The appellant State is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed in the aforesaid terms with no Order as to costs.