Asstt. Engineer (D and M) R.S.E.B. Vs. Indira Devi and anr.

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - to award a penalty is a discretion of the commissioner and on the facts, if the commissioner is satisfied that there is deliberate delay on the part of the employer, then the commissioner must impose the penalty and, in this case, in my view, learned commissioner has rightly awarded the penalty......application for compensation the appellant had deposited the compensation amount and, therefore, it cannot be said that his conduct was such which would call for the penalty. 3. before appreciating the second submission made by learned counsel, few facts are required to be stated. the accident took place on august 15, 1990 and the application for compensation was filed by the claimants before the commissioner on november 29. 1991. before that, the appellant had deposited the compensation amount to the tune of rs. 83, 182/- on july 10, 1991. it was also argued and averred in the memo of appeal that much before that the appellant tried to deposit the said amount of compensation by way of demand draft on may 3, 1991 but learned commissioner refused to accept the same and orally asked the appellant to pay the said amount in cash which was in turn paid in cash on july 10, 1991. therefore, in short the submission was that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in depositing the compensation amount. 4. under the workmen compensation act, the employer is required to calculate and deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of accident. it is admitted fact that the appellant has not deposited the said amount within 30 days. it came to be deposited only on july 10, 1991. of course, there is an averment and also the submission that they tried to deposit the amount by demand draft on may 3, 1991 and the commissioner refused and orally asked to pay in cash which they have deposited on july 10, 1991. 5. except the bare words of the appellant, there is nothing on record to show that they have tried to pay the said amount by demand draft on may 3, 1991. even assuming for the sake of arguments that they did try to deposit the said amount by demand draft, which was not accepted and they were asked to deposit in cash, there is further delay of more than 2 months in depositing the cash amount. that delay has remained unexplained. to award a.....