U. C. MAHESHWARI, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 8. 10. 2001 passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Labour Court no. 1, Jabalpur (in short 'the Commissioner')in Case No. 27/98/fatal. The M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 is initiated at the instance of the claimants for granting interest and penalty on the amount of compensation as ordered while M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 has been preferred for setting aside the award at the instance of the employer Divisional railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP ). ( 2 ) THE appellants of M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 have been impleaded as respondents in M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 and respondents of aforesaid former appeal are appellants in the latter appeal and they are called in this order as claimants and employer. ( 3 ) THE husband of claimant No. 1 and father of other claimants, namely, late Lal khan, was employed as gang-man under the employment of the said respondent employer and on the date of incident dated 18. 4. 1997, he was posted at Damoh and during the course of duty he was discharging his official functions at Makroniya railway Station. At about 7. 30 in the evening due to some altercation with the official of the department he got cardiac pain and consequently he died. Such death took place during the course of the employment while discharging the official duty. All claimants being legal representatives and dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation under Workmen's Compensation act. Deceased employee was aged 38 years on the date of incident and was getting salary Rs. 2,000 per month. Thus, claim was preferred under section 3 of the Act for Rs. 1,89,560. ( 4 ) IN reply of employer, it was denied that deceased Lal Khan died during the course of employment while discharging the official duty. It is also pleaded that death of Lal Khan has not taken place during employment and discharging the official duty, no incident has taken place as mentioned by the claimants. The incident of altercation with other official has also been denied. The claimants are not entitled for any compensation. It is also pleaded that death of Lal Khan has not taken place during employment and discharging the official duty, no incident has taken place as mentioned by the claimants. The incident of altercation with other official has also been denied. The claimants are not entitled for any compensation. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, has framed the issues and recorded evidence of respective parties. On appreciation of evidence the Commissioner held that the deceased was an employee and suffered heart attack during the course of discharging the official duty and died. His age was found to be 45 years. Deceased was getting rs. 1,900 per month and by saddling the liability for compensation against the employer ordered to pay Rs. 1,06,968 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application, i. e. , 19. 6. 1998 and interest from the date of the death and penalty have not been awarded to claimants, hence the claimants have filed appeal for imposing penalty and awarding interest as provided under section 4-A of the said Act, while the employer has filed appeal for setting aside the aforesaid impugned order passed by Commissioner. ( 6 ) MR. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for employer in M. A. No. 1805 of 2001, has submitted that in view of the evidence available on record, although deceased was an employee of the employer but at the time of death he was not discharging any official function as such he was not on duty. According to his submission, death of Lal Khan has not taken place because of any accident during the course of the employment in discharge of the duty. He died on aforesaid date at 7. 20 p. m. while his duty was to begin from 7. 30 to 11. 30 a. m. , as per his submission after lunch the deceased did not turn up for duty and before duty hours he was found dead. So employer was not responsible to indemnify the claim as filed by claimants. ( 7 ) HE further submitted that the instant appeal has been filed on two substantial questions of law. 30 a. m. , as per his submission after lunch the deceased did not turn up for duty and before duty hours he was found dead. So employer was not responsible to indemnify the claim as filed by claimants. ( 7 ) HE further submitted that the instant appeal has been filed on two substantial questions of law. Firstly, whether deceased died during the course of his employment while he was on duty and finding of the Commissioner in this regard is contrary to record and perverse; or? while another question is whether the commissioner has committed illegality in ignoring the material evidence adduced on behalf of employer which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. He also referred the statement of witnesses and documents filed on record and prayed for setting aside the order of Commissioner. ( 8 ) SO far as appeal M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 filed by the claimants is concerned, he has submitted that in the appeal of the claimants no substantial question of law is involved and even if the appeal of the employer is not found maintainable even then in the facts and circumstances of the case the claimants are not entitled to any interest or penalty as prayed by them. The claimants have already been allowed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum by the Commissioner from the date of filing their claim application. Thus, on these questions the award does not require any interference. ( 9 ) MR. Hansraj Bharti, learned counsel for respondents-claimants has submitted in m. A. No. 1804 of 2001 that as per the provision of sections 3 and 4-A of the Act, the employer was bound to deposit the amount of compensation on the basis of schedule and prescribed procedure of the act within one month from the date of death of the deceased employee and if such amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, then as per mandatory provision of section 4-A of the Act, the claimants were entitled to interest on the awarded compensation from the date of death of the employee and also entitled for penalty. But the learned Commissioner has not given any specific finding for not awarding interest and imposing penalty. But the learned Commissioner has not given any specific finding for not awarding interest and imposing penalty. He has also referred to sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act and prayed that involvement of the substantial question of law on this point is apparent hence appeal be allowed and also prayed that the M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 filed by the employer be dismissed, as no substantial question of law is involved in it. The finding regarding factum of the accident during the course of employment recorded by the Commissioner is a finding of fact and it cannot be considered as a substantial question of law and he also referred some decisions. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, firstly, we have to examine whether any substantial question of law is involved in these appeals which is mandatory requirement of section 30 of the Act to entertain the appeal. ( 11 ) SO we have carefully gone through the order of the Commissioner and according to our considered opinion the finding that death of the deceased employee took place during the course of employment while discharging the official functions as given on appreciation of the evidence and documents, is a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence. Finding is not shown to be perverse in any manner and cannot be disturbed by invoking jurisdiction of the appeal under section 30 of the Act, as such the finding of fact cannot be a foundation for framing the substantial question of law and thus, we do not find any question of law muchless a substantial question of law in the appeal of the employer. Our aforesaid view is fortified with the ratio in the case of Laxmibai Atmaram v. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port trust, AIR 1954 Bombay 180, in which it has been held as under:" (5) The question, therefore, that we have to consider is whether there was any causal connection between the death of this workman and his employment. The authorities again are clear that if the workman died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering, then it could not be said that his death was caused out of his employment. The authorities again are clear that if the workman died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering, then it could not be said that his death was caused out of his employment. The authorities also have gone to this length that if a workman is suffering from a particular disease and as a result of wear and tear of his employment he dies of that disease, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But it is equally clearly established that if the employment is a contributory cause, or if the employment has accelerated the death, or if it could be said that the death was due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment, then the employer would be liable and it could be said that the death arose out of the employment of the deceased. Mr. Petigara says that we are bound to accept the finding of fact of the Commissioner and the Commissioner has observed that he failed to see what was the strain caused on the heart of the deceased by his duties as a night watchman and he has further observed that it is impossible to link the death of the deceased with any exertion the deceased may have had on the day of his death. Mr. Petigara is perfectly right that in appeals against the decisions of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, we are bound by the findings of fact and the appeal only lies on substantial questions of law. "in the case of Abbu Bakar Abdula Rahman (ABFU Baklar) v. Narayan, AIR 1933 nagpur 272 (2), the court held:"the respondent has been awarded rs. 819 as the compensation under the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for the loss of sight in one eye, which the Commissioner has found to have been caused by an accident arising out of the scope of his employment as a ginfitter in the factory of the appellant. The appellant appeals against that award on three grounds: first that the application was not maintainable in the absence of proper notice, secondly, that the loss of sight was not caused by any accident in the factory, and thirdly, that if any such accident did occur it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellant appeals against that award on three grounds: first that the application was not maintainable in the absence of proper notice, secondly, that the loss of sight was not caused by any accident in the factory, and thirdly, that if any such accident did occur it did not occur in the course of his employment. The commissioner has found that while the respondent was scrapping the cylinder of the gas engine in the appellant's factory on 26. 11. 1930, a particle of rust entered his eye, and that this eventually caused complete loss of sight in that eye. Under section 30 of the Act no appeal lies unless a substantial question of law is involved. This finding of the commissioner, therefore, which is based on the evidence of the respondent and dr. Saoji, AW 2, who treated the respondent at the request of the Manager of the factory, is a finding of fact that cannot now be challenged. "thus, in view of the aforesaid dictums no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal of employer as such M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 deserves to be dismissed. ( 12 ) COMING to the appeal of claimants before considering anything on merits for examining the substantial question of law, we have to see section 4-A of the Act which reads as under:"4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central government, by notification in the Official gazette, on the amount due; and (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 the 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. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, 'scheduled bank' means a bank for the time being included in the second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of india Act, 1934 (2 of 1934 ). The interest payable under subsection (3)shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be, and the penalty shall be credited to the state Government. " ( 13 ) THE bare language of section says that the compensation is payable within the stipulated time which is provided under the aforesaid sub-section (3) of section 4-A. The compensation in the case at hand became due on the date of death of the employee and if it was not deposited according to the aforesaid provision, as per schedule and other provisions of the Act, then in view of the said mandatory provision the interest on the determined amount of compensation has to be ordered to be paid at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of death of employee. ( 14 ) QUESTION of interest burden, mandatory provision of section 4-A (3) of Act is a substantial question of law on considering the submissions of respective parties as submitted by them and on perusing the impugned order it is apparent that death of employee during the employment in discharging the official function took place on 18. 4. ( 14 ) QUESTION of interest burden, mandatory provision of section 4-A (3) of Act is a substantial question of law on considering the submissions of respective parties as submitted by them and on perusing the impugned order it is apparent that death of employee during the employment in discharging the official function took place on 18. 4. 1997 while the claimants filed the application on 19. 6. 1998, the employer was duty-bound to deposit the compensation amount within a month, i. e. , from 18. 4. 1997 as per mandatory provisions of section 4-A (3) of the Act. It was not deposited within time, however, the Commissioner has awarded interest only at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim application. Thus, we find the violation of section 4-A (3) of the Act and error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The interest is ordered to be paid at 12 per cent per annum from date of accident. ( 15 ) SO far penalty is concerned, in the facts and circumstances we do not find any substance in the arguments because no evidence regarding wilful default of the employer in depositing the amount has been proved. ( 16 ) THE mandatory provisions of section 4-A of the Act warrants to pay the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date on which the compensation was due which is the date of death of deceased in the case at hand thus we do hereby hold that the claimants, appellants of M. A. No. 1804 of 2001, are entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of death of employee Lal Khan on the amount of compensation. Thus, to the aforesaid extent the impugned order is modified. ( 17 ) RESULTANTLY, M. A. No. 1805 of 2001 is hereby dismissed, while the M. A. No. 1804 of 2001 is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Orders accordingly. .