JUDGMENT : V.M. SAHAI, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is that what is the starting point of payment pi interest on the amount which has fallen due to the workman under Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? The facts in brief are that an accident took place on 8.8.1980 while Girdharlal B. Panchal, workman was working in the factory of the Appellant whose one hand was crushed in the accident. A notice for compensation was sent by the workman, Girdharlal B. Panchal to the employer but it was refused by the employer. Thereafter, he filed a Workmen Compensation Application No. 133 of 1980 before the Labour Court which also exercises jurisdiction of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in brief "the Act"). The Labour Court found that the workmen had suffered 45.64% permanent disability and awarded Rs. 21,000/- as compensation by judgment and award dated 31.8.1990. 2. Since the Labour Court did not award any interest amount on the compensation awarded to the workman and compensation was paid after delay, the workman, Girdharlal Panchal filed an application No. 128 of 1991 on 23.4.1991 before the Labour Court claiming 6% interest on the awarded amount and Rs. 10,500/- by way of fifty per cent penalty. This application of the workman was rejected by the Labour Court on 15.6.1993. The order passed by the Labour Court on 15.6.1993 was challenged by the workman by filing Special Civil Application No. 7893 of 1993 before this Court. The learned Single Judge awarded interest to the workman from the date of accident as well as fifty percent penalty of Rs. 10,500/-. It is this order dated 10.11.2009 of the learned Single Judge which has been challenged by the Appellant-employer in this Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. B.S. Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. N.V. Solanki, learned Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased-workman. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the learned Single Judge has committed error in awarding interest from the date of accident. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the learned Single Judge has committed error in awarding interest from the date of accident. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. 1976 (32) FLR 92 (SC). Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Valsala K. and Anr. etc. 1999 (83) FLR 508 (SC). Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi and Ors. reported in, (2003) 3 LLJ 566 SC, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. 2009 (121) FLR 1103 (SC). Maghar Singh Vs. Jashwant Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 134 and Baria Gaman Hamji v. Rajnikant J. Shah and Ors. 1992 (65) FLR 227 (Guj.). and has urged that the Appellant was entitled for payment of interest from the date of accident as the amount of compensation fell due from the date of accident. 5. The Act deals with the provisions for payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for employment injuries caused by accident. Section 3 of the Act deals with "Employer's liability for compensation". Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that "if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II". Section 4 of the Act deals with "Amount of compensation". It lays down the statutory scheme for computing the compensation payable in cases of the types of accidental injuries suffered by the workmen concerned. The employer, on a conjoint reading of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act, would be liable to make good the liability for paying compensation to the insured workmen under circumstances contemplated by these provisions. Then follows Section 4-A of the Act during the relevant time, in 1980 when the accidents occurred and the award was delivered in 1990 read as under: 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default--(1) Compensation u/s 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Then follows Section 4-A of the Act during the relevant time, in 1980 when the accidents occurred and the award was delivered in 1990 read as under: 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default--(1) Compensation u/s 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 employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee 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 may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is No. justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. The said section was amended by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995 and in the amended form it now reads as under: 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default--(1) Compensation u/s 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 employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee 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. 6. A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that Section 4-A deals with the time for payment of compensation as required to be computed u/s 4. Sub-section (1) thereof mandates that compensation shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Sub-section (2) thereof contemplates a situation wherein the employer though accepting his liability to pay compensation to his injured workman disputes the extent of the claim of compensation and in such a case Sub-section (2) enjoins him to make provisional payment based on the extent of accepted liability by depositing it with the commissioner or to pay it directly to the workman. It is obvious that such an obligation of the employer would not arise u/s 4-A Sub-section (2) if he totally disputes his liability to pay on grounds like the injured person being not his employee or that the accident was caused to him at a time when he was not in the course of employment or that the accident caused to him did not arise out of his employment. If such disputes are raised by the employer then his obligation to make provisional payment under Sub-section (2) of Section 4-A would not arise and his liability would depend upon the final adjudication by the Commissioner at the end of the trial. If such disputes are raised by the employer then his obligation to make provisional payment under Sub-section (2) of Section 4-A would not arise and his liability would depend upon the final adjudication by the Commissioner at the end of the trial. In that light when Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A is seen it becomes obvious that once the compensation due under the Act becomes ascertained either provisionally under Sub-section (2) or finally on adjudication by the Commissioner and if the employer does not pay the same within one month from the date it thus falls due, the Commissioner can direct under Sub-clause (a) of Section 4-A(3) interest at the rate provided therein and also penalty as contemplated by Sub-clause (b) thereof as per the amended Section 4-A(3) of the Act but even under the unamended Section 4-A(3) which applied at the relevant time a clear distinction is made by the legislature between the imposition of penalty by way of a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of compensation amount and the imposition of interest on the amount of compensation found payable when it is not paid within the requisite time as and when it fell due. Thus even in the scheme of unamended Section 4-A(3) or as per the amended Section 4-A(3) read with Clauses (a) and (b) thereof, it becomes clear that additional amount of compensation can be levied against the defaulting employer by way of penalty if it is shown that there is No. justification for the delay on his part in making good the compensation amount to the claimant. Interest payable on the principal amount, if not paid when it fell due, is not considered by the legislature to be a penalty. This is further highlighted by the proviso to Section 4-A(3) as substituted by Act 30 of 1995 which clearly indicates that a penalty amount under Clause (b) cannot be imposed against the employer without giving him reasonable opportunity to show cause. No. such show-cause notice is contemplated while imposing interest on default of payment of the principal amount on the part of the employer as per Section 4-A(3)(a). Absence of this provision is obviously based on the legislative intent that interest on principal amount is not by way of penalty. Therefore, the employer need not be heard in this connection. No. such show-cause notice is contemplated while imposing interest on default of payment of the principal amount on the part of the employer as per Section 4-A(3)(a). Absence of this provision is obviously based on the legislative intent that interest on principal amount is not by way of penalty. Therefore, the employer need not be heard in this connection. A simpliciter default in payment of compensation within the time of one month from the date it fell due would automatically attract the provision for simple interest u/s 4-A(3) as per the rate prescribed therein and for such imposition of interest No. question of justification for the delay is countenanced by the legislature. Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors. 1997 (77) FLR 637 (SC). 7. The question still is as to what will be the starting point when the amount would fall due for payment to the workman. This question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, wherein in para 9 the Apex Court held as under: 9. Interest is payable u/s 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability u/s 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh Vs. Jashwant Singh, By amending Act 14 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since No. indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that compensation u/s 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication u/s 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication u/s 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise. 8. The Apex Court has clearly explained that the amount would fall due only after one month of pronouncement of the award by the Commissioner. Therefore, on a plain reading of the section, it is apparent that the amount would fall due only after the amount is settled by the Commissioner u/s 19 of the Act and if the amount determined or settled or awarded is not paid within a period of one month, then the employer is bound to pay the statutory simple interest. In Palraj Vs. The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, the Apex Court in para 19 has held that compensation assessed u/s 4 has to be paid as soon as it falls due and in case of default in payment of compensation due under the Act, if not paid within one month, the Commissioner would be entitled to direct payment of simple interest on the amount. It was further held by the Apex Court that the interest under the Act cannot be claimed from the date of filing of the application for compensation but only after the default is committed in respect or the payment of compensation within 30 days from the date on which the payment becomes due. Therefore, the decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent do not help the Respondent. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has produced the receipt issued by the workman on 27.8.1991, 20.9.1991 and 9.10.1991. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, he has paid the amount of compensation to the claimant along with costs and interest. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has produced the receipt issued by the workman on 27.8.1991, 20.9.1991 and 9.10.1991. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, he has paid the amount of compensation to the claimant along with costs and interest. Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged that even after the expiry of 30 days of the award dated 31.8.1990 of the Commissioner, the amount of compensation was not paid to the workman. In the case in hand the amount of compensation which had fallen due after 30 days of the order passed by the Commissioner i.e. 30.9.1990 but the compensation was not paid to the workman. The statutory interest of 6% was payable in the year 1990 therefore, the workman or his heirs would be entitled to statutory simple interest at the rate of 6% as the accident is of 1980 and award is of 1990, on the amount of compensation which shall be calculated by the Labour Court/Commissioner on an application being made by the workman's legal heirs. 10. So far as the award of Rs. 10,500/- penalty is concerned, it could not be disputed by the Appellant that even after the order passed by the Commissioner on 31.8.1990, the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,000/- was not paid by the Appellant to the workman till 30.9.1990. Therefore, the Appellant committed default and delay in payment of compensation, therefore, the penalty awarded by the learned Single Judge to the extent of Rs. 10,500/- is upheld which is liable to be paid by the employer to the claimant. Though the Appellant was entitled for a notice before imposition of penalty but since notice was issued to him in Special Civil Application and he was heard on the question of penalty by the learned Single Judge, No. useful purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the Commissioner after twenty years. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal succeeds in part. The amount of interest as directed to be paid by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10.11.2009 from the date of accident is set aside. Simple interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of compensation would be payable by the Appellant with effect from 30.9.1990 till the date of payment of compensation. The order of learned Single Judge for payment of fifty per cent penalty of Rs. 10,500/- is upheld. Simple interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of compensation would be payable by the Appellant with effect from 30.9.1990 till the date of payment of compensation. The order of learned Single Judge for payment of fifty per cent penalty of Rs. 10,500/- is upheld. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited 5y the Appellant before' this Court be remitted by this Court within a period of one month to the Labour Court/Commissioner for being adjusted in the amount to be paid to the Respondents herein in pursuance of this judgment. If any excess amount had been deposited, it shall be refunded to the Appellant. The Labour Court/ Commissioner shall calculate the amount of interest which is payable to the heirs of the workman on the amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of the order passed by us is produced before the Labour Court. If the amount calculated by the Labour Court/Commissioner exceeds Rs. 20,000/-the difference amount shall be deposited by the Appellant before the Labour Court/Commissioner within one month from the date of calculation. After fresh calculations, the amount deposited by the Appellant shall be paid to the Respondents within a further period of fifteen days. The parties shall bear their own costs.