Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 996 (MAD)

Manager Pannimede Estate v. Ramer

2011-02-25

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2414 to 2417 of 2008 are preferred by the appellant to set aside the order Nos.A1/8919/07, A1/8952-A/07, A1/8952-B/07 and A1/8952/07 dated 19.03.2008 in W.C.Case Nos.85 and 80 of 2005, 23 of 2006 and 87 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation respectively. 2. Since the question of law involved in all these appeals is common, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment. 3. These appeals are filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore. When the matters came up before this Court on 11.11.2008, this Court admitted the appeals and framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:- "Whether the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another reported in 2007 (1) LLJ 1035 ?" 4. The background facts in a nut shell, are, as follows:- The appellant in all the cases is the employer and the respondent in all the cases are the employees of the appellant. All the workmen/respondents sustained injury in the course of the employment. Therefore, they claimed compensation by filing applications before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore. The appellant/employer resisted the claim. On pleadings the Deputy Commissioner of Labour framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the employees comes under the purview of workmen's Compensation Act and sustained injury during the course of their employment? 2. Whether the employees are entitled to any compensation, if so, what is the quantum and who are liable to pay compensation?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, held that the accident had occurred during the course of their employment and awarded a compensation of Rs.19,740/-, Rs.14,219/-, Rs.17,239/- and Rs.25,219/- respectively. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour also directed the appellant to pay the compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order and if the amounts have not been paid within 30 days, the appellant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour also directed the appellant to pay the compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order and if the amounts have not been paid within 30 days, the appellant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant immediately filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, explaining the delay. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour rejected the contention and directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant filed the present appeals. It is also pertinent to note that they have already deposited the award amounts and there is no dispute regarding the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals vehemently contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, is illegal, without any basis and justification. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought not to have levied interest from the date of accident. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. He also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Palraj Vs. Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 347, in support the claim of the appellant. 6. In spite of notice served on the respondents in all the appeals and their names are also printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals and perused the documents available on record. 8. 6. In spite of notice served on the respondents in all the appeals and their names are also printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals and perused the documents available on record. 8. The details regarding the date of accident, amount awarded, date of award and delay are as under:- CMA.No. 2414 of 2008 against W.C.No.85 of 2005 CMA.No. 2415 of 2008 against W.C.No.80 of 2005 CMA.No. 2416 of 2008 against W.C.No.23 of 2006 CMA.No. 2417 of 2008 against W.C.No.87 of 2005 Accident Date 23.06.2004 19.12.2003 30.05.2004 25.02.2004 Award Amount Rs.19,740/- Rs.14,219/- Rs.17,239/- Rs.25,219/- Award Date 09.10.2007 09.10.2007 30.10.2007 09.10.2007 Received on 07.11.2007 09.11.2007 09.11.2007 09.11.2007 Due on 07.12.2007 09.12.2007 09.12.2007 09.12.2007 D.D. taken on 08.12.2007 08.12.2007 08.12.2007 08.12.2007 D.D. sent on 10.12.2007 10.12.2007 10.12.2007 10.12.2007 D.D. Received on 12.12.2007 13.12.2007 13.12.2007 13.12.2007 Delay 4 days 4 days 4 days 4 days Interest calculated as per the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Rs.26/- Rs.19/-Rs.23/- Rs.33/- It is seen from the above, after passing the award, the appellant received a copy and immediately after the next due date taken D.D. i.e. on 08.12.2007 and sent the same on 10.12.2007 and the same was received on 12.12.2007 and 13.12.2007 respectively. If at all there is a delay, only it is 4 days in all the cases and the appellant is liable to pay interest only small amounts of Rs.26/-, Rs.19/-, Rs.23/- and Rs.33/- in respect of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 9. On identified facts, the Supreme Court in the case of Palraj Vs. Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation cited supra, considered the issue and in paragraph 19 it has been held as follows:- "19. It will be evident that compensation assessed under Section 4 is to be paid as soon as it falls due and in case of default in payment of the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date when it falls dues, the Commissioner would be entitled to direct payment of simple interest on the amount of the arrears @ 12% per annum or at such higher rates which do not exceed the maximum lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government. Both the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, as also the High Court, therefore, rightly held that interest under the 1923 Act cannot be claimed from the date of filing of the application, but only after a default is committed in respect of the payment of compensation within 30 days from the date on which the payment becomes due." In the light of the principles enunciated in the above Judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 10. In the result, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, is set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.