JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The employer challenges the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on the ground that there has been violation of Section 4-A(3) and the proviso to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is evidence on record to show and suggest that the Insurance Company had been intimated about the factum of accident immediately at the time when the accident took place. She has drawn my attention to the notice Ex.P-3 in which it is also mentioned that the Insurance Company had been intimated with respect to this fact. 2. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 to submit that granting of hearing before imposition of penalty is mandatory as contemplated by the Act. A reading of the order passed by the Commissioner shows that no such exercise has been undertaken by him. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the Commissioner shall re-determine the fact as to whether penalty imposed upon the appellant herein was justified? The other part of the award shall remain unchanged. Parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 21.5.2009. A direction is issued that the Commissioner shall dispose of the case not later than three months from the date so fixed. The amount lying in fixed deposit in the Registry shall not be disbursed to any party without the prior permission of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.