ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The employer is the appellant in the appeal presented under Section 30(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased Prahladdas Mundada was a workman of the appellant. He had held the post of driver on Matador bearing registration No. MBM-2730. While he was driving the aforesaid Matador, the truck caused the accident as a result of which aforesaid workman died on the spot during the course of the employment. His Legal Representatives, Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed the application, registered as 62/W.C./86. The application was allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Indore on September 17, 1990 awarding compensation of Rs. 86,764.00 with penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 under Section 4A of the aforesaid Act and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from March 21, 1986 till payment. Aggrieved, the employer has filed this appeal. Respondent No. 5 is The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Indore which is also saddled with the liability. 3. I have heard Shri S.S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri G.K. Neema, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4, and Shri Harish Gilke, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5. 4. The counsel for Respondent No. 5 submitted that the amount of compensation (Rs. 86.764.00) has already been deposited and this appeal is restricted to the dispute as regards the liability of penalty and interest. 5. Shri Samvatsar submitted that the Award to the extent of penalty and interest is erroneous in law. 6. I have perused the Award dated September 17, 1990. I find that the Award with respect to penalty and interest is without documentation of reasons. There is no whisper in the award to the effect that the affected parts were heard on these questions specifically. In 1996 N.P.L.J. 493 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Abidabai, Wd/o Abid and Ors.), it is held as under : "Shri Dandvate further submitted that the learned Commissioner has imposed penalty at the rate of 10% for not depositing the said amount of award within prescribed time limit without assigning any reason. If such penalty is to be imposed, the learned Commissioner is obliged to give reasons for doing so. He is obliged to pass speaking order disclosing the reasons which led him to impose such penalty. If such penalty is to be imposed, the learned Commissioner is obliged to give reasons for doing so. He is obliged to pass speaking order disclosing the reasons which led him to impose such penalty. Penalty cannot be imposed unless there are good grounds to do so and unless the person on whom the penalty is imposed has been given opportunity of being heard." 7. In view of the aforesaid position, while I uphold the Award of compensation, (Rs. 86,764.00) I have no option but to set aside the Award with regard to penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 imposed under Section 4A of the aforesaid Act as also direction of the interest and remand the case back to the Labour Court as regards these two items. The Labour Court shall hear the parties on the question of imposition of penalty and liability as also on the point of interest and decide these aspects afresh in conformity with law. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on August 12, 1996 to take further orders in the matter. 9. The record of the Labour Court shall be returned immediately so as to reach there well before August 12, 1996. 10. I make no order as to costs.