Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 237 (KAR)

GURUDEEP SINGH v. SURJIT KAUR

2002-03-27

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR, T.S.THAKUR

body2002
TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Belgaum, whereby a sum of rs. 1,79,230/- has been awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case the deposit of the amount awarded is not made within a period of 30 days. ( 2 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Sabhahit submitted that although he has challenged the impugned order even in regard to the quantum of compensation determined by the same, yet he would be satisfied in case the challenge in the appeal is examined only to the extent the order does not levy a penalty. He urged that the Commissioner had framed an issue on whether or not a penalty was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. While deciding the same the Commissioner had declined to levy a penalty in just two words viz. , "no penalty". This, according to the learned counsel, was not a satisfactory method of dealing with the question whether or not the facts of the case warranted levy of a penalty especially when it was not in dispute that there was a delay in the deposit of the amount due to the claimant. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondent on the other hand argued that levy of penalty was in the discretion of the Commissioner and that since the amount of compensation determined is fair and reasonable, it was not necessary that the Commissioner should have levied a penalty also. He submitted that since the Commissioner did not levy a penalty it must necessarily imply that in his opinion no case for levy of penalty had been made out. ( 4 ) SECTION 4-A (3) (b) of the Workmen's, compensation Act inter alia empowers the commissioner to levy a penalty not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation if, in his opinion, there was no justification for the delay in the deposit of the compensation within one month from the date the same fell due. A plain reading of that provision leaves no manner of doubt that the Commissioner ought to levy a penalty in case he finds that there was no justification for the delay in the deposit of the amount of compensation. A plain reading of that provision leaves no manner of doubt that the Commissioner ought to levy a penalty in case he finds that there was no justification for the delay in the deposit of the amount of compensation. Whether or not there was any justification for the delay is however a matter on which the Commissioner was required to apply his mind. Application of mind is best done by disclosure of the mind. Disclosure of mind in turn is best done by stating the reasons in support of the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner. That is not what the Commissioner has unfortunately done in the instant case. The impugned order does not disclose the application of mind on the part of the Commissioner in so far as the existence or absence of justification for the delay in the deposit of the amount is concerned. Once it is admitted that there was a delay in the deposit of the amount, the Commissioner had to necessarily examine the question whether or not there was any justification for the same. Justification for the delay could be found only on the facts of the case to which the commissioner had to refer while arriving at any conclusion. Failure of the Commissioner to examine the question of delay and justification for non-depositing therefore renders the order made by him unsustainable to that extent. ( 5 ) IN the result, this Appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed but only to the extent that the order made by the Commissioner in so far as the same declines to levy any penalty shall stand set aside and the matter remitted back to the commissioner with a direction that he shall examine the question of levying a penalty in terms of Section 4-A (3) (b) of the Workmen's compensation Act, afresh in accordance with jaw. ( 6 ) THE parties to appear before the commissioner on June 10, 2002. --- *** --- .