This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the order levying penalty of Rs.30,000 upon the insurance company. The facts of the case are that in a claim petition under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), having been filed by the widow of the deceased Angorn Devendra Singh, the Commissioner passed an Award in the sum of Rs. 82,380 on 4.7.95. It was stipulated in the Award that it was only the insurance company which was liable to make the payment and that to before 3.8.95. The appellant insurance company having not made the payment within the stipulated time, the widow of the deceased had no other option left but to approach the Commissioner again complaining of non-deposit of the amount The Commissioner issued notice to the appellant which has been attached with the appeal as Annexure A/2 asking it to appear on 27.9.95 to show cause as to why the penalty should not be recovered under section 4A(3) and 31 of the Act. The insurance company did file objection petition but the learned Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000 by virtue of the order passed on 13th October, 1995 which read as under: “The opposite party No.2 has not yet deposited the amount of compensation in spite of the time given under the orders dated 27.9.95. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rs thirty thousand) only shall be recovered, from the opposite party No.2 by way of penalty under sub-section (3) of the section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the opposite party No 2 is directed to deposit the same amount togethter with the amount of compensation.” 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the appellant being an insurance company is not liable to pay the penal amount and that such a liability should bei imposed upon the principal employer only. The learned counsel was at pains to refer to the voluminous case law including AIR 1997 SC 3854 in the case of Vyed Prakash Ghar vs. Premi Devi. The argument in my considered view is devoid of any merit. In the present case, the principal employe? was never held jointly responsible to satisfy the Award. The learned counsel was at pains to refer to the voluminous case law including AIR 1997 SC 3854 in the case of Vyed Prakash Ghar vs. Premi Devi. The argument in my considered view is devoid of any merit. In the present case, the principal employe? was never held jointly responsible to satisfy the Award. On the other hand, the Award was passed only against the insurance company and not against the principal employer and in view thereof, the ratio of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Vyed Prakash Ghar case (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted this Court would be accepting too much from the principal employer. Once the principal employer was never held liable to pay any amount whatsoever, it is not understandable as to how he can be held liable for payment of penal amount. In other words, this Court would be imposing a penalty for non-compliance of the Award which was never passed against the principal employer. The argument to say the least is bereft of any merit and is to be rejected at the threshold. 3. Having found no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. On the asking of the Court the counsel for the appellant was not in a position to state whether the penal amount has been paid or not. If the amount has remained unpaid uptill now, the Commissioner can put any further penalty or interest on account of non-payment of penal amount, he would be at liberty to do so. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.