AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amitava Lala, J.—The appeal is preferred by the company from the judgement and order dated 11th1 March, 2008 passed by the concerned Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, Meerut by awarding compensation of Rs. 2,30,212/-.
A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents-claimant about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that since the interest and penalty are awarded statutory deposit will be made covering such part being part and parcel of compensation to make the appeal maintainable before the Court of appeal. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents has cited a Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neeru Dabur and Others,
We have considered the judgement delivered whereunder the insurance company was placed equally with an employer. In other words, insurance company is liable to deposit the principal sum, interest and penalty if it chooses to prefer an appeal at the instance of the employer.
This is an appeal of the employer. u/s 30, the amount of awarding compensation is provided under Sub-Section (1) (a) of such section when awarding interest and penalty is under Sub-Section (1)(a)(a) of such section. Necessary provisions & proviso are quoted below:
Section 30(1)(a) - an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
Section 30(1)(aa) "an order awarding interest or penalty u/s 4-A;"
Section 30(1) third proviso speaks as follows:
Provided further that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.
The provision clearly segregates interest or penalty from the principal sum. Embargo is available only with Clause (a) under Sub-section 1 of the Section. Therefore, our considered opinion is that for the purposes of preferring an appeal statutory deposit of the amount means principal sum not interest or penalty. Hence, the appeal cannot be said to be not maintainable on that score. Law is to be read as it is not by adding any alien object not contemplated thereunder.
So far the point of maintainability is concerned, it is finally concluded hereunder.
So far as merit is concerned, the dispute is with regard to the master-servant relationship, therefore, at this stage no amount can be released without further hearing. Since the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the other appeal i.e. FAFO No. 1443 of 2006 (Vivek Mani Sharma v. Smt. Mahendri) is pending before this Court, let the appeal be connected with the same and be heard on exchange of affidavits without filing any formal paper book as agreed upon by the parties and particularly when both the contesting parties are present before this Court.
Therefore, counter affidavit may be filed by 15th, May, 2008, Rejoinder affidavit, if any, by 20th May, 2008.
Let the appeal appear on 21st May, 2008 for further hearing.
Shishir Kumar, J.
I agree.