1. Contours of controversy involved in the present appeal make it imperative to notice Section 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923. It reads -- 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 may any further claim. (3) Where any employer is an 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 there on at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate nor 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 percent 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 purpose 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). (3-A) The interest payable under sub-section (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. 2. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that compensation under Section 4 of the Act is to be paid to the workman or the dependants of the workman as soon as it falls due. 2. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that compensation under Section 4 of the Act is to be paid to the workman or the dependants of the workman as soon as it falls due. In case the compensation payable under the Act is not paid within one month from the date it fell due the Commissioner under Act may subject to the conditions laid down in Section 4-A (3) (b) direct the employer to pay, in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon, the sum not exceeding 50 % of such amount by way of penalty. Since the powers of Commissioner under the Act to direct the payment of penalty have a reference to the date the compensation has fallen due, it is necessary to first focus on this aspect of the controversy. 3. Workmens Compensation Act is Welfare Legislation. Object of enactment as spelt out in the statements of objects and reasons is to achieve social security. The dependants of a work man who suffers an injury or meets fatal accident during course of his employment, cannot be left high and dry without any source to fall back upon. The Act makes the employer liable to pay compensation to his workman incapacitated by the accident arising out of or in the course of employment or in the event of death of workman, to his dependants. It is a liability which flows out of the relationship of master and servant. Having regard to the ultimate objective of Section 4 of the Act, it becomes equally important to ensure that the compensation payable under Section 4 is paid without any delay and with due dispatch. Section 4-A gives expression to the legislative intent to ensure immediate payment of the compensation so that it provides some kind of succour to the injured work man or to the dependants of the deceased workman. The rationale behind Section 4-A is not difficult to comprehend. In case the employer burdened with the responsibility to pay compensation is allowed to delay its payment with impunity, the very object of the Act would be frustrated. 4. So viewed, the duty to pay compensation is to be performed by the employer on the date of accident itself. In other words the employer has not to wait till the workman or his dependants file a petition under the Act. 4. So viewed, the duty to pay compensation is to be performed by the employer on the date of accident itself. In other words the employer has not to wait till the workman or his dependants file a petition under the Act. In case the employer is not in agreement with the quantum of compensation demanded by the claimant(s) the employer is under duty to pay such amount of compensation to the claimant(s) as he accepts or deposit the same with the Commissioner under the Act for onward payment to the claimant(s). The employer may thereafter contest the claim for enhanced compensation before the Commissioner under the Act. However, where the employer is convinced that he is not under an obligation to pay the compensation, the employer may contest the claim and avoid making the deposit at the risk of his being asked by the Commissioner to pay penalty under Section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act, for his failure to make the deposit. The Commissioner may make the composite order i.e. an order under Section 4 for payment of the fixed amount and also payment of interest and penalty. 5. The Commissioner under Act vide judgment/order dated 25.8.2007 directed the employer -appellant herein, to pay an amount of Rs, 2,26,800/- to the dependants of the deceased workman Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Sofi resident of Trinkanjan Uri. The Commissioner did not make an order for payment of interest on the awarded compensation amount or the penalty. However the Commissioner did not expressly disallow interest and penalty on the compensation amount. 6. The claimants on 3.1.2008 filed an application before the Commissioner under the Act, complaining that the Commissioner while making the award did not make an order for interest on the awarded amount and penalty in terms of Section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act. The claimants grievances was that the appellant had failed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date it had fallen due and the claimants had a right to ask for interest on the awarded amount as also penalty for failure of the employer to make the deposit in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act. The Commissioner under the Act, after going through the record and hearing the parties accepted the application and made an order directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs, 1,13,400/- as penalty and Rs. The Commissioner under the Act, after going through the record and hearing the parties accepted the application and made an order directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs, 1,13,400/- as penalty and Rs. 1,14,680/- as interest at the rate of 12% on the awarded amount. 7. The order dated 28.12.2008 is challenged on the grounds that the appellant having deposited the awarded amount immediately after the award was made, vide receipt dated 17.10.2007, it was no more open to the Commissioner under the Act to pass order for interest and penalty. The impugned order is said to have been passed in gross violation of law and re-opened the issue that was already dealt with. It is urged that once the Commissioner under the Act made the award the right course for the claimants was to file an appeal against the award and not a fresh application before the Commissioner under Act. The impugned order is said to have been passed in hot haste and on irrelevant considerations. It is further averred that a review petition made by the appellant was also summarily dismissed on erroneous grounds. 8. The appellant has taken a threshold objection to the maintainability of the present appeal on grounds that the Commissioner under Workmans Compensation Act having impliedly disallowed the prayer for grant of penalty and interest in terms of Section 4-A of the Act, it was no more open to the respondent No. 2 to file a subsequent application under the said provision for awarding penalty and interest on the awarded amount. It is argued that the only option available to the respondent No. 2 was to file the appeal against the order of Commissioner against the order dated 25th August 2007 and a subsequent application before the Commissioner under the Act, was hit by principle of Resjudicata. Support is sought from law laid down in 2003 (SLJ) 101 followed in CIMA No. 44/2003 dated 7th February 2005. 9. Whether failure of the Commissioner under the Act, to make an order for payment of penalty and/or interests at the time of making an order under Section 4 of the Act, would disentitle the claimant from making an application, afterwards for penalty in terms of Section 4-A of the Act, is the question that falls for consideration. 10. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. 10. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. When the claimant approaches the Commissioner under the Act with an application under Section 4 of the Act, for a direction to the employer to pay compensation to the claimant, the claimant may or may not ask for penalty and interest on the claimed amount in terms of Section 4-A of the Act. In the event the claimant makes such a prayer and the prayer is dealt with and expressly declined by the Commissioner, the claimant may very well be held not entitled to re-agitate the matter by making a subsequent application under Section 4-A of the Act for awarding penalty and interest on the compensation amount. In case the Commissioner has not considered at all the right to get penalty and interest in terms of Section 4-A of the Act and has not touched the matter in the order under Section 4, the claimant cannot be held deprived of right to make an application under Section 4-A of the Act to the Commissioner for awarding penalty or interest on the compensation amount because of delay in depositing of the compensation beyond period prescribed under Section 4. I hold so, for the following reasons. (i) Workmans Compensation Act as already pointed out like other labour Legislation is a welfare legislation, Having regard to the objection of the Act a purposive, liberal and beneficent constructions is to be followed. The underlying object of the legislation warrants an interpretation which advances and fructifies the benevolent law in preference to the interpretation that frustrates the object underlying the Act. Supreme Court in (1995) 6 SCC 326 has summed up the law on the subject as follows:- "....... In interpreting a social welfare legislation such a construction should be placed on the relevant provisions which effectuates the purpose for which such legislation is enacted and does no efface the same. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislations is designed to give relief against certain kind of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions." Section 4-A was incorporated in Workmans Compensation Act 1923 by the Act 8 of 1959, so as to address the mischief of delayed payment of compensation amount. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislations is designed to give relief against certain kind of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions." Section 4-A was incorporated in Workmans Compensation Act 1923 by the Act 8 of 1959, so as to address the mischief of delayed payment of compensation amount. It was felt that delay in payment of compensation to the incapacitated workman or the dependants of deceased workman amounted to denial of the payment and robbed the Act of its very purpose- the purpose being that the claimant must get the compensation immediately after the accident, so that the workman or the dependants of the deceased are not exposed to penury and hardship. Denial of right to the claimant to approach the Commissioner under the Act with an application under Section 4-A (3) for delayed deposit of compensation after an order under Section 4 is made, when the Commissioner was neither called upon to decide the question of payment of penalty and interest nor directed his attention to the question, would amount to frustrating very purpose that persuaded the law makers to introduce the amendment. The situation maybe different where the Commissioner under the Act is asked to deal with the question and Commissioner finding any justification in delayed payment expressly disallows the claim for penalty and interest. (ii) The facts set out in 2003 (1) SLJ relied upon by Counsel for the respondents do not sufficiently indicate that a prayer for grant of penalty and interests was not made before the Commissioner under Act, when the claim petition was filed. It remains to be known whether the Commissioner under Act disallowed the prayer for grant of penalty and interest after such a claim was put- forth and delay in deposit of the compensation found justified in terms of Section 4-A (3). In the present case admittedly no claim for payment of penalty and interest was made when the claim petition was presented and thus the Commissioner while initially dealing with and disposing of the claim petition did not at all focus on the right of the workman to get the penalty and interest on the compensation amount and whether there was any justification for delayed payment. So viewed, the case relied upon by the Counsel for the respondents may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. So viewed, the case relied upon by the Counsel for the respondents may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. (iii) That the Scheme of remedies available to the workman at the level of Commissioner under the Act and the Appellate Forum make it clear that the order for compensation under Section and order for penalty and interest under Section 4-A (3) of the Act may not be always composite and may very well be passed at two different stages. Section 4-A makes room for a separate application from the one presented under Section 4. The claim petition and the former application is to be decided on considerations different from the considerations that must weigh with the Commissioner under the Act, while dealing with an application under Section 4-A of the Act. Section 4 lays down the principles that must guide the Commissioner under the Act while determining compensation payable to the claimant. Section 4-A requires the Commissioner under the Act, to apply his mind to the facts of the case as projected before him by the parties explaining the reasons for delay in deposit of the compensation. While the claimant has to prove that the delay was unjustified, to succeed in his claim for penalty and interest; the employer to escape the liability has to prove that the delay was justified. Section 4-A (3) thus leaves scope for an application from the workman or the dependant(s) independent of the claim petition under Section 4 of the Act. Again an order under Section 4 allowing the claim is made appealable under Section 30 (1) (a) whereas as an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A is appealable under Section 30 (1) (aa). Had it been the intention of law makers to treat an order under Section 4 and order under Section 4-A composite leaving no scope for a separate order under Section 4-A, there was no reason to make orders under Section 4 and Section 4-A of the Act appealable under two different provisions. 12. Had it been the intention of law makers to treat an order under Section 4 and order under Section 4-A composite leaving no scope for a separate order under Section 4-A, there was no reason to make orders under Section 4 and Section 4-A of the Act appealable under two different provisions. 12. It follows, that once a right has accrued to workman /claimant to get penalty and interest under Section 4-A, for delayed deposit/payment of compensation, the right cannot be said to have got extinguished only because the Commissioner under Act did not focus his attention on the right of the claimant to get penalty and interest or omitted to deal with this aspect of the case. The situation it may be stated, at the cost of repetition, would be entirely different if claim for penalty and interest is made before the Commissioner under the Act, and same is rejected as in that case the right course for the claimant would be to assail the order through the medium of appeal and not to re-agitate the matter before the Commissioner under the Act. I am fortified in my view by law laid down in 1982 ACJ (Suppl.) 153 (Mathura Prasad and others v. Saiyed Khursheed and others. 13. Having dealt with the threshold objection regarding maintainability of the application under Section 4-A, let us advert to the order impugned in the appeal. 14. The Commissioner under the Act, while passing an order under Section 4-A (3) (b) for payment of penalty has to record his reasons that there has been no justification for the delay in making the deposit within one month of date on which the compensation fell due. Section 4-A (3) (b) further gives discretion to the Commissioner under the Act to order payment of any sum "not exceeding 50%" of compensation amount by way of penalty. The language of Section 4-A (3) (b) makes it abundantly clear that the Commissioner under the Act has not to pass order for penalty under the Act as a matter of course, at his whim or caprice. The language of Section 4-A (3) (b) makes it abundantly clear that the Commissioner under the Act has not to pass order for penalty under the Act as a matter of course, at his whim or caprice. The Commissioner has to afford an opportunity to the employer to convince him that there was justification for delay and on an objective and dispassionate appraisal of material placed before him, the Commissioner has to conclude whether there was or was not justification for the delay in depositing the compensation and in case there was no such justification, what was the amount to be awarded as penalty. The Commissioner under Section 4 -A (3) (b) the Act is required to pass a reasoned order. 15. In the present case the Commissioner after making the award on 25.8.2007 has entertained an application for interest and penalty on 3.1.2008 and allowed the application by observing; "........ the applicant has been made to suffer and wait for a long period of time for the compensation on account of the death of his deceased son and in the ordinary course should have been compensated immediately after the accident due to which his bread earner has lost his lift. The court does not find any hitch in awarding the penalty and the interest on the decree amount in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has every right to claim the same in accordance with the law which he has done............" 16. From the perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the Commissioner has neither gone into question whether there was any justification for delay in depositing the compensation within one month from the date the compensation fell due nor recorded satisfaction that in his opinion "there is no justification for the delay". It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition, that Commissioner under the Act in terms of Section 4-A (3) (b) is saddled with the duty to make a reasoned order and record his satisfaction that in his opinion there was no justification for delay in depositing the compensation. The Commissioner after recording such satisfaction has to arrive at a conclusion regarding amount, not exceeding 50% of the compensation, to be awarded as penalty to the claimant. The discretion as regards the quantum of penalty is also to be exercised objectively. The Commissioner after recording such satisfaction has to arrive at a conclusion regarding amount, not exceeding 50% of the compensation, to be awarded as penalty to the claimant. The discretion as regards the quantum of penalty is also to be exercised objectively. In the present case mere observation of the Commissioner under the Act that "court does not find any hitch in awarding the penalty" can not be taken to be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 4-A (3) (b). The Commissioner under the Act while making the impugned order has no where stated that in his opinion there was for the given reasons no justification for delay in depositing the compensation. The order for payment of penalty obviously has been made in violation of the mandate of Section 4-A (3) (b) and deserves to be set aside. The requirements as regards penalty are not made applicable in terms of Section 4-A (3) (a) to an order for payment of interest. The Commissioner under the Act is not required to record any satisfaction that in his opinion there was no justification for delay in depositing the compensation amount, before making an order for payment of interest on the compensation. So viewed, the order as regards award of interest does not call for interference. 17. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal partially succeeds. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner under the Act for fresh orders as regards award of penalty after affording the parties opportunity to lead evidence touching existence or otherwise of "justification for delay" and hearing the parties in the matter. The order as regards payment of interest is left un-interfered. The parties to appear before the Commissioner under the Act, on 18th March 2010. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.