Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ramesh Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (27.10.1999 - MPHC)

Ramesh vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

Disposition Petition allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 27, 1999
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/502990

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.R. No. 774/1999
Subject
Labour and Industrial
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4A(3A)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Advocate Shri. Thakur

Respondent

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

Legal References

Acts
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4A(3A)
Reported In
2001ACJ1413; [2000(85)FLR754]; (2000)IIILLJ553MP

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - in this case the petitioner-applicant filed the claim case averring that he was engaged by the non-applicant as a labourer and while going down in the well with the help of rope which broke and he fell down in the well and sustained injuries......for crediting the amount of penalty to the state government came into force on september 15, 1995 while this accident took place on february 8, 1984, therefore, this amount could not be directed to be credited to the government.in the year 1984. section 4a of the act was as under:'section 4a: compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default: (1) compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) in case where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. according to section 4a(3) if the employer committed default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner could direct in addition to the amount of arrears, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount due together with and if in the opinion of the commissioner there was no justification for the delay, penalty could be imposed on the employer and penalty amount could be paid to the claimant. however by amending act no. 30 of 1995 section 4a was amended by inserting sub-section (3-a). it is reproduced below:'(3-a): the interest payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependent, as the case may be, and the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shambhoo Singh, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 9, 1999 passed in W.C.C. 112/88 by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Indore. In this case the petitioner-applicant filed the claim case averring that he was engaged by the non-applicant as a labourer and while going down in the well with the help of rope which broke and he fell down in the well and sustained injuries. He claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. The non-applicant resisted the claim. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 25,327.50 with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum as compensation and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the Commissioner vide order dated April 9, 1999 directed the non-applicant to deposit Rs. 25,387.50 with interest to be paid to the petitioner and further directed that the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- be credited to the Government in view of Section 4A(3-A) Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is challenging this direction.

2. Shri Thakur learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned Commissioner committed error in directing penalty amount to be credited to the Government. He submitted that the provision for crediting the amount of penalty to the State Government came into force on September 15, 1995 while this accident took place on February 8, 1984, therefore, this amount could not be directed to be credited to the Government.

In the year 1984. Section 4A of the Act was as under:

'Section 4A: Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:

(1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due.

(2) In case where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.

(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.

According to Section 4A(3) if the employer committed default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner could direct in addition to the amount of arrears, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount due together with and if in the opinion of the Commissioner there was no justification for the delay, penalty could be imposed on the employer and penalty amount could be paid to the claimant. However by amending Act No. 30 of 1995 Section 4A was amended by inserting Sub-section (3-A). It is reproduced below:

'(3-A): The interest payable under Sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependent, as the case may be, and the penalty shall be credited to the State Government'.

It is clear from the above that the penalty amount shall be credited to the State Government.

3. This amendment has not been given retrospective effect. As stated earlier, it came into force on May 15, 1995 and the accident had taken place in the year 1984 when this provision was not in existence. Therefore, the penalty amount could not be directed to be credited to the State Government. Therefore, the Commissioner committed error in directing penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- to be credited to the Government.

4. In view of above, the impugned direction of crediting amount of Rs. 10,000/-to the Government is set aside. Thus, the revision is allowed.

No order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial