ORDER : Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Arpan Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For a direction commanding upon the respondents to refund the amount deducted from his bill with interest and within a specified period; And/Or for issuance of any Writs/Orders/Directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had executed some work for the respondents and the petitioner duly submitted the bill. He further submits that the bills were released only in part. 6. Vide letter no.457 dated 28.10.2010, the respondents intimated the petitioner that a compensation of Rs.3,08,739.15 calculated on the basis of disablement of one Sahdeo Yadav was paid to the said workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and accordingly, the amount was deducted from the bill of the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the payment of compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is contemplated under Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and even if the respondent herein had made any payment to the said workman engaged by the petitioner namely, Sahdeo Yadav then also the respondents have no jurisdiction to deduct any amount from the bill of the petitioner and the payment made by the respondent directly to the injured Sahdeo Yadav cannot be said to be a payment under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and accordingly, he submits that the amount which has been deducted by the respondent should be immediately paid to the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 406 , the payment, if any, directly to the workman on account of injuries sustained by him cannot be treated as payment under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the deduction of the said amount from the bill of the petitioner, that too without any prior intimation and consent to the petitioner, is wholly without jurisdiction. 9. 9. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has filed a counter-affidavit and it has been submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the repair and maintenance of 10 units of quarter was in progress from 29.02.2008 and one of the worker of the petitioner was injured during his course of employment and the respondents had incurred certain expenses in connection with his treatment and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,08,739.15 has been calculated by the management of the respondents and treated as compensation to the workman and has been deducted from the bill of the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the payment is to be treated to be payment made under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, although the procedure prescribed under Section 8 has not been followed. 11. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,08,739.15/- was deducted from the bill of the petitioner and was paid by the respondents directly to the injured person and the respondents have treated this as a payment under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under: “Distribution of compensation - [(1) No payment of compensation in respect of workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation: [Provided that, in the case of a deceased workman, an employer may make to any dependant advances on account of compensation not exceeding an aggregate of one hundred rupees, and so much of such aggregate as does not exceed the compensation payable to that dependant shall be deducted by the Commissioner from such compensation and repaid to the employer]. (2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. (2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. (3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him.] (4) On the deposit of any money under sub-section (1), as compensation in respect of a deceased workman the Commissioner shall deduct therefrom the actual cost of the workmen's funeral expenses, to an amount not exceeding fifty rupees and pay the same to the person by whom such expenses were incurred, and shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on each dependant in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependants to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied after any inquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependant exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid. The Commissioner shall, on application by the employer, furnish a statement showing in detail all disbursements made. (5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased employee shall, subject to any deduction made under sub- section (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant. (6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. (6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. (7) Where any lump sum deposited with the Commissioner is payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman, or of such person during his disability, in such manner as the Commissioner may direct; and where a half- monthly payment is payable to any person under a legal disability, the Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf, order that the payment be made during the disability to any dependant of the workman or to any other person, whom the Commissioner thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the workman.] (8) Where, an application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on account of neglect of children on the part of a parent or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependant or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Commissioner as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Commissioner may make such orders for the variation of the former order as he thinks just in the circumstances of the case: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless such person has been given an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made, or shall be made in any case in which it would involve the repayment by a dependant of any sum already paid to him. (9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under sub- section (8) by reason of the fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in section 31.]” 12. (9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under sub- section (8) by reason of the fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in section 31.]” 12. This Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 406 [: 2013(2) JLJR (SC) 195] and after considering the provision of Section 8(1) to Section 8(3) of the said Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Sub-section (1) to (3) of Section 8 extracted above leave no room for any doubt that when a workman during the course of his employment suffers injuries resulting in his death, the employer has to deposit the compensation payable, with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Payment made by the employer directly to the dependants is not recognized as a valid disbursement of compensation. The procedure envisaged in Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 can be invoked only by the employer for depositing compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Consequent upon such “suo motu” deposit of compensation (by the employer) with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the Commissioner may (or may not) summon the dependants of the employee concerned, to appear before him under sub-section (4) of Section 8 aforesaid. Having satisfied himself about the entitlement (or otherwise) of the dependants to such compensation, the Commissioner is then required to order the rightful apportionment thereof amongst the dependants, under sub-sections (5) to (9) of Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Surplus, if any, has to be returned to the employer.” 13. From the perusal of the said interpretation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that any payment made by the respondents directly to the dependants is not recognized as a valid disbursement of compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and accordingly, the argument of the respondents that the payment made by the respondents directly to the workman on account of injury was a payment under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is not sustainable. 14. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds that there was no justification or authority by the respondents to deduct the amount of Rs.3 lakhs and odd and give it directly to the workman and such amount could not have been deducted from the bills of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of the bill i.e. amounting to Rs. 3,08,739.15/- (Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine Rupees and Fifteen Paise) to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.