ORAL JUDGEMENT. 1. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Advocate Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, for petitioners/dependents contend that Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Court, Buldhana has in WCA (F) Case No.11/2004 (Old case no. 6/2001), failed to exercise jurisdiction to award interest at 12%. He invites attention to the provisions of Section 4A[3] clause [1] of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to contend that grant of 12% interest was mandatory. He further argues that in view of provisions of clause [b] of that sub-section, interest ought to have been awarded also on penalty amount awarded to the dependents. In order to show that he could not have challenged this non grant of interest in Appeal under section 30, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Bai and others .vrs. Kishanlal and another ( 1991 ACJ 615 ). 3. Advocate Shri S.R. Deshpande, on the other hand invites attention to Section 30[1][a] of the Act, to contend that the statute permits filing of appeal even when interest is not awarded. He further relies upon the provisions of Section 4A[3] to urge that in any case claim for interest on penalty amount is not supported by those provisions. 4. It is thus obvious that there is no award of interest in the present matter. The operative part of the judgment dated 4.7.2007 delivered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, is as under :- The Application at Exh.1 is allowed. 2.The non applicant is directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 1,25,952/- in this court within three months from the date of this order. 3.The non applicant is directed to deposit 50% penalty on the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.62,976/- in this Court within three months from the date of this order. 4.No order as to costs.. 5. Thus the Commissioner awarded Rs.1,25,952/- as compensation and amount of Rs. 62,976/- as penalty under the provisions of Section 4A[3][b] of the Act. Interest under section 4A[3][a] has not been awarded. The scheme of Section 30 itself is very clear and said section contemplates appeal against the order awarding compensation and against order awarding interest on penalty. 5. Thus the Commissioner awarded Rs.1,25,952/- as compensation and amount of Rs. 62,976/- as penalty under the provisions of Section 4A[3][b] of the Act. Interest under section 4A[3][a] has not been awarded. The scheme of Section 30 itself is very clear and said section contemplates appeal against the order awarding compensation and against order awarding interest on penalty. The appeal is to be entertained only if substantial question of law is involved and in case of any appeal filed by the employer, the appeal is required to be accompanied by certificate of Commissioner that the employer has deposited with him amount payable under order, appealed against. Thus if there is no award of interest at all to the claimants/dependents, they cannot file appeal under section 30 of the Act. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has in the above referred ruling, taken similar view after appropriate discussion in the matter. This Court also in 2006(3) Mah. L. J. 298 = 2006 (6) LJSOFT 125 -- Namdeo s/o Ukhardu Patil Vs. Bharat s/o Janardhan Patil and another, in para 21 observed that in case of non-grant of interest and penalty contemplated under section 4-A of the Act of 1923, no remedy by way of appeal under section 30 of the Act of 1923, is made available to the workman. In view of the these decisions and view, I do not find it necessary dwell more upon this aspect in the present Writ Petition. 6. In so far as award of interest is concerned, provisions of Section 4A[3][a] are mandatory. The minimum interest prescribed is 12% and therefore, the Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction available to him by not awarding any interest. It is significant to note that the Commissioner has under clause [b] thereof awarded 50% of the amount as compensation as penalty. Thus having found no justification on part of employer for not depositing the compensation immediately when imposition of penalty was found necessary, not awarding the statutory interest is nothing but failure to exercise the jurisdiction. 7. Advocate Shri Kalwaghe claims interest on amount of compensation & interest also. He has relied upon the word .arrears. appearing in sub-section [3][a] to state that said word includes amount of compensation as also penalty. He states that when the amount is not deposited within time, the penalty accrues and therefore, legislature has deliberately used the word .arrears. 7. Advocate Shri Kalwaghe claims interest on amount of compensation & interest also. He has relied upon the word .arrears. appearing in sub-section [3][a] to state that said word includes amount of compensation as also penalty. He states that when the amount is not deposited within time, the penalty accrues and therefore, legislature has deliberately used the word .arrears. to denote jointly the amount of compensation as also the amount of penalty. 8. Advocate Shri Deshpande, has invited attention to the fact that in sub-clause [b], the Commissioner is required to record a finding that there was no justification for delay in depositing compensation and thereafter only penalty can be awarded. He further states that sub-clause [b] itself uses the word amount of interest, separately and amount of arrears contemplated by subclause [a] are different. 9. The amount of penalty contemplated by sub-clause [b] is a distinct head and hence law does not contemplate grant of interest on penalty. Perusal of these provisions together show that the word arrears as used in section 4A[3](a) also covers the contingency in which employer may have deposited part of compensation. The provisions of sub-clause 3[a] do not cover amount of penalty at all, because the penalty is leviable under subclause [b], if the arrears of compensation are found to be withheld by the employer without any justifiable reason. Language in sub7 clause [b] shows that in that event the Commissioner may in addition to the amount of those arrears and interest awarded under sub-clause [a] award further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty. Thus statute contemplates the compensation as arrears. The amount of interest under sub-clause [a] is distinct grant and amount of penalty grant is a distinct grant. The penalty to be granted, therefore, has to be 50% of the amount of arrears and accordingly, the same has been granted. The demand for grant of interest on amount of penalty, is therefore, not supported by this provision. 10. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Petitioners are found entitled to 12% interest on amount of Rs. 1,25,952/- from the date of accident i.e. 28.12.2000. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.