JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. During the pendency of this petition since 1993, the petitioner has passed away and his three sons and his widow are joined as petitioners pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2004 in Civil Application No.407 of 2004. The original petitioner has invoked Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution and called into question the order dated 15.06.1993 of Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No.128 of 1991 whereby his application for interest and penalty on the amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "the Act") was rejected with costs. 2. The simple and undisputed facts transpiring from the original judgment and order dated 31.08.1990 and the impugned order are that the petitioner's hand was crushed on 08.08.1980 in an accident while the original petitioner was serving under the respondent on daily wage of Rs.18/-. A notice for compensation was issued on his behalf and it was refused by the respondent, whereupon W.C. Application No.133 of 1980 was made. The original petitioner was assessed to have suffered 45.64% permanent disability and, even as the respondent's advocate did not care to argue, the Commissioner under the Act ordered payment of Rs.21,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs by order dated 31.8.1990. Thereafter, the original petitioner made Misc. Application No.128 of 1991 in the original W.C. Application No.133 of 1980 to claim interest @ 6% and Rs.10,500/- by way of penalty. That application was rejected by the impugned order on the grounds that the workman had not claimed such relief in the main claim application and an application for such discretionary relief could not be entertained as the claim for interest and penalty was made after final decision and more than 12 years of the accident. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Commissioner, the original petitioner approached this Court and, even as Rule was issued and made returnable on 17.12.1993 by Division Bench, the matter appears to have been listed for the first time for hearing thereafter on 29.10.2009. 4. According to the erstwhile provisions of section 4-A of the Act, compensation under section 4 was required to be paid as soon as it fell due. Even if the employer were not accepting the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he was required to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepted. 4. According to the erstwhile provisions of section 4-A of the Act, compensation under section 4 was required to be paid as soon as it fell due. Even if the employer were not accepting the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he was required to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepted. Where any employer was in default in paying compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner under the Act was required to direct the employer to pay, in addition to the amount of arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due. If in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, he can direct recovery from the petitioner of a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, by way of penalty. 5. There is no dispute about the liability of the respondent for making payment of compensation under the Act. Therefore, the limited issue is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to and required to be awarded interest and penalty over and above the amount of compensation. It clearly appears from the record that not only that the respondent had not paid or deposited the amount of compensation but the proceedings before the Commissioner were unduly and inordinately delayed. The claim application of the petitioner also prayed for reinstatement which indicated that the petitioner had lost his job also due to and after the accident. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Solanki that even the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner after ten years of the accident was not immediately paid but the payment was made only after the petitioner approached this Court by way of an application complaining about contempt of Court. As held by the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [ (1976) 1 SCC 289 ], the employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman and there cannot be suspension of compensation pending settlement or adjudication. In the facts of that case, the employer had raised frivolous objections before the Commissioner and filed a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In the facts of that case, the employer had raised frivolous objections before the Commissioner and filed a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In such facts, the order for payment of interest and penalty was held to be fully justified. Similarly, in the facts of the present case, the Commissioner was required to exercise his power to order payment of penalty and interest not only in the interest of justice but having regard to the long pendency of the claim petition, during which period real value of money would have depreciated to a great extent. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Hardik Pandit, appearing for the respondent, was called upon to explain as to why interest and penalty should not be awarded to the petitioner; but he only submitted that the respondent was also in a poor condition and the Court may take a sympathetic view for the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, this is a fit case in which extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to be exercised in the interest of justice since the Commissioner under the Act has failed to do complete justice and exercise the powers conferred upon him for that purpose. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay to the petitioners interest @ 6% from 08.09.1980 till 08.09.1993, on the sum of Rs.21,000/-, and Rs.10,500/- by way of penalty. The total sum would come to Rs.47,880/- and that sum shall have to be paid to the petitioners with interest @ 9% from 08.09.1993 to 08.09.2009 (Rs.47,880 + 68947 = 1,16,827). Adding to that amount sum of Rs. 3,173/- by way of costs of the present petition, the total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- shall be divided into four parts and each part shall be paid to each petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.