JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-Arihant Engineering Industries had come up in the misc. appeal against the order dated 29.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Ajmer, the authorised authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The authority had passed an order on the claim filed by Sarita Srivastava wife of late Suresh Chand Srivastava who was a workman with the appellant. Late Srivastava (hereinafter called the workman) died while on duty when a stone flew from grinding machine, had hit him. The workman had died at the spot. The claim application was filed. The claim application was resisted by the present appellant on number of grounds even to the fact that he was not a workman as he was working only on daily wages or that he was a beldar or that he was a temporary person. The claimant had even opposed the claim by saying that he has not suffered the injury during the course of employment. An FIR was also recorded and information was given to the Collector about the accident. 3. The authority had held that the deceased was a workman under Section 2(1)(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act and had died during the course of his employment in the accident as stated. Vide impugned order compensation was awarded to the extent of Rs. 1,14,056/- with interest of Rs. 13,686/-. A penalty of Rs. 57,028/- was also imposed i.e. a total amount of Rs. 1,84,770/- was provided as compensation. 4. The only point being argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 4(A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the competent authority is authorised to levy a penalty up to 50% of the total compensation but stated that no reason has been given for levying the maximum penalty. 5. The amount of compensation and the interest awarded was not disputed and the matter was argued on the point of penalty only. 6. For giving immediate relief to the heirs of the deceased, who is injured or died in the accident while on duty, the law prescribes and puts a liability/responsibility on the employer to pay the compensation immediately and in case of failure to make such payments, the employer is further burdened with interest and also with the penalty. 6. For giving immediate relief to the heirs of the deceased, who is injured or died in the accident while on duty, the law prescribes and puts a liability/responsibility on the employer to pay the compensation immediately and in case of failure to make such payments, the employer is further burdened with interest and also with the penalty. In original Section 4(A), the penalty was to be deposited and was payable to the State but vide amendment made under Section 4(A) it has been specifically provided by adding Section 3(A) that the interest and penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be payable to the workman or his dependent, as the case may be. 7. In the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1997(4) SCT 541 (SC) : 1997(8) SCC 1 : AIR 1997 SC 3854 , the Supreme Court had considred the question of payment of interest and penalty. It was held by the Supreme Court that Insurance Company will not only be liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but also the interest thereon, if any, imposed by the Commissioner under the relevant sections of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was held that the interest becomes accruable automatically upon the employer once the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due. It was further observed that it is of course true that one month period as contemplated under Section 4(A)(3) starts running for the purpose of attracting interest under sub-section (a) thereof in case where a provisional payment has to be made by the insured employer as per Section 4-A(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act from the date such provisional payment becomes due. But when the employer does not accept his liability as a whole then Section 4-A(2) would not get attracted. It was further held that there was a clear distinction made by the Legislature applied at the relevant time between the imposition of penalty by way of further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of the compensation amount and the imposition of interest on the amount of compensation found payable when it is not paid within the requisite time as and when it fell due. It was further held that once the compensation fell due, it would be paid within one month and no question of distinction in the circumstances shall arise for consideration for any delay. 8. It was further held that once the compensation fell due, it would be paid within one month and no question of distinction in the circumstances shall arise for consideration for any delay. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) had laid down that the liability to pay penalty is upon to owner. 9. In the present case the reasons for giving 50% penalty, to which the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act is competent to levy are apparent on the face of it in view of defence taken by the employer. The employer had taken all possible steps to resist the claim by denying the status of the deceased workman and even by denying the accident and saying that the deceased had not died during the course of employment even though it was admitted that he died spontaneously on being hit by a stone of the grinding machine. The penalty can definitely be lessened if the conduct of the employer is such as to warrant the furtherance of aims and objects of the Workmen's Compensation Act i.e. if the employer fulfills his duties by accepting the liability and pays the provisional compensation for immediate help to dependents or injured as per law. But if the employer even not only tries to resist the claim application and ultimately it is found that none of the defence of the employer was available to such employer and compensation application is decided, in my opinion, the liability of 50% as provided under the Act can be called the reasonable and is not to be interfered with. I am supported by a judgment in the case of Bisesar S/o Dasaru v. M/s. Govind Oil Mill, 2000(3) MPLJ 357 : 2001 Lab IC 1001 , where 50% penalty was held to be justified in the circumstances of the case. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the appeal and the same is disposed of with the direction that the amount of penalty shall also be paid to the dependents of the workman i.e. the claimant-widow.Appeal dismissed. *******