AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—These appeals are filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, in W.C. No.
26 of 1999 on 14.9.1999 and in W.C. No. 248 of 1999 on 10.5.2002 respectively.
The Claimants in the respective case filed the appeals only in respect of denial of interest for the amount of compensation awarded. In C.M.A.
No. 1899 of 2000 (W.C. No. 26 of 1999), the authority passed an award of Rs. 95,744/- and in C.M.A. No. 710 of 2003 (W.C. No. 248 of
1999) the award amount is Rs. 2,09,920/-.
In both these appeals, the common substantial question of law raised by the appellants/claimants is that the authority failed to award interest
from the date of accident as against the statutory provision contained in Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants argued that the claim of the appellants having been upheld and the compensation
having been awarded, interest should have been ordered from the date of the claim petition. The learned Counsels also cited the following
decisions in support of their contention:
(a) Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another,
(b) Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others,
(c) Maghar Singh Vs. Jashwant Singh,
(d) Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 469
(The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pondicherry v. Kaliya Pillai and 2 Ors.)
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 1899 of 2000 submitted that the appellants are not entitled to raise the issue
of payment of interest from the date of the claim petition as the matter in issue is already settled in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, and the said decision is binding on this Court.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants as well as respondents.
The point in issue is whether the appellants are entitled to claim interest from the date of the claim petition or only after expiry of 30 days from
the date of determination of compensation amount.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, the Apex Court considered similar issue and in paragraph 9 held thus,
Interest is payable u/s 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The
question of liability u/s 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh Vs. Jashwant Singh, . By amending Act 30 of 1995, Section 4-A of the
Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the
amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point
is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to
when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that
compensation u/s 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The
adjudication u/s 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done,
question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides
that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the
extent claimed. The crucial expression is ''falls due''. Significantly, legislature has not used the expression ''from the date of accident''. Unless there
is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.
In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court, the contention raised by the appellants to award interest from the date of claim
petition cannot be sustained.
In this respect, the following decisions of the Supreme Court can be usefully referred to in the light of the submission of the learned Counsel for
the appellants citing various decisions referred above.
(a) In the decision reported in Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, in paragraph 9 it is held as follows:
It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal
position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, it is the mandate of the Constitution as
provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out by
this Court in Anil Kumar Neotia and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the
decision of the Supreme Court even though the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court.
(b) In Rapti Commission Agency Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (para 7), the Supreme Court held that the judgments of the Supreme Court are
bound to be followed under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
(c) In a recent decision reported in AIR 2007 SCW 2655 (Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Smt. Vilasiniben Ramachandran and Ors.) in
paragraph 12 the Supreme Court held thus,
It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all the authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open to any
authority to ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of
this Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised in the showcause notices. Such an attempt is to
belittle the issues and the orders of this Court. We are pained to say that the then Deputy Collector has scant respect for the orders passed by the
Apex Court.
In view of the settled position of law as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir
Ahmed and Another, , the appellants are not entitled to get interest from the date of claim petition and they are entitled to get interest only after
expiry of 30 days from the date of determination of compensation amount.
There is no merit in the civil miscellaneous appeals and the same are dismissed. No costs.