JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Order dated 6.9.2003 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur in Claim Case No. 1/2002 whereby besides awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,36,940/-, interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded from the date of incident, payable by the Insurance Company and an amount equal to 25% of the compensation has been imposed as penalty, payable by the present appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Randhir Singh - husband of the claimant Santra and son of claimants Phool Singh and Chando Devi, was under employment, as Driver of Tractor (RJ 34-R 0739) belonging to the appellants. While he was on duty, he met with an accident on 23.11.2001 at about 1.30 P.M. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed thereto. The deceased was 22 years' old. His monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/-. The claimants, who are dependants of the deceased, filed claim application under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') for compensation. The Court below accepted the application and apart from granting compensation imposed penalty under Section 4-A (3)(b) of the Act on the employer. 3. The appellants have filed this appeal with the prayer to quash and set - aside the impugned award so far it relates to the imposition of penalty i.e. 25% of the compensation, and that they may be exonerated from the liability of the penalty. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and other material available on record. 5. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that learned Court below has wrongly imposed the penalty under Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Act. It is also contended that it was mandatory on the part of the learned Court below to serve with a show cause notice and give a reasonable opportunity prior to imposition of the penalty under the aforesaid provision. But no such notice was ever given to the appellants nor any reasons have been assigned for imposition of the penalty as required under the aforesaid provisions. Reliance was placed on Abma & Ors. v. V. Sowbhagyamma & Ors., 2002 ACJ 536 ; Jagbandhu Singh & Anr. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., 111(2002) ACC 166 (DB) , and S. Kumaraswamy & Anr. Reliance was placed on Abma & Ors. v. V. Sowbhagyamma & Ors., 2002 ACJ 536 ; Jagbandhu Singh & Anr. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr., 111(2002) ACC 166 (DB) , and S. Kumaraswamy & Anr. v. Ramu, III (2002) ACC 467 , wherein it was observed that prior to imposition of the penalty under Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Act, grant of a reasonable opportunity is a mandatory provision. 6. In the instant case it is not disputed that prior to fastening the liability of penalty, no notice under Section 4-A(3)(b) was given to the owner. To appreciate the contention raised by the appellants, it would be relevant to quote the provision, which reads as under: "4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, Commissioner shall (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for payment of penalty shall not be passed under Clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed." 7. A bare reading of the above provision reveals firstly that if there is a clear finding of the Commissioner with respect to the absence of any reason for the delay, the employer can be directed to pay penalty as stipulated, and secondly that the liability of penalty can be fastened on the employer only after issuance of a proper show cause notice. Both these requirements of law, being mandatory and not having met prior to the passing of the impugned award, so far the imposition of the penalty is concerned, the award is liable to be set-aside. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned order insofar as it relates to fastening of liability with regard to the payment of penalty to the extent of 25% of the compensation, stands set-aside.Appeal allowed. *******