JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed, against, the award pronounced, by, the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., upon, case No. 6/07, whereunder, statutory penalty borne, in, a sum of Rs.77,000/-, stood, assessed, upon, the appellant herein, employer of the deceased workman. 2. The instant appeal was admitted, on, 22.02.2011, yet thereat, no, statutorily enjoined substantial question, of, law, stood, framed. However, during the course, of, hearing of the instant appeal, hence, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court, has, framed the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law, for meteing, of, an adjudication thereon:- “1. On the Claimants accept from Insurance Company an amount as full and final amount of compensation, in a compromise arrived at during the pendency of the proceedings before the ld. Commissioner WCA, should that amount be treated as inclusive of all claims including penalty?” 3. The parties at contest, do not, wrangle over the factum qua the deceased workman, suffering his demise, during the course of his rendering employment, under, the appellant herein. However, the only contest which has emerged inter se the successors-in-interest, of, the deceased, and, the appellant herein, appertains, to the legality of the fastening of the penalty, upon, the appellant herein, the employer of the deceased workman, given, as aforestated the latter uncontrovertedly, dying, during the course of his performing employment, under, the appellant herein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has, with great vigour made an espousal before this Court (I) that with occurrence of a compromise, during, the pendency of the afore petition before the learned Commissioner concerned, compromise whereof occurred, inter se, the insurer, and, the claimants, and, when thereunder an amount of Rs.1,54,000/- stood agreed, to be paid as compensation, sparked by the demise of the predecessor-in-interest, of, the claimants, in the afore fatal accident, (ii) besides with the afore compromised settled amount also standing liquidated, by the insurer to the claimants, (iii) thereupon, there was no occasion, for the learned Commissioner, to, fasten the afore quantum, of penalty, upon, the employer/appellant herein. However, the afore contention, is, grossly flawed, as, it is beyond, the, ambit of a catena of judicial verdicts, made, upon an interpretation, of, sub-section (1), and, of sub-section (2), of, Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “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 of 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 make any further claim.” (a) whereunder, the employer, is, judicial expostulated, to, in contemporaneity, with, the ill occurrence, rather liquidate the compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the disabled workman or his successors-in-interest, as the case may be. The afore expostulation of law, appertain, to the afore connotation, being acquired by the statutory phrase “shall be paid as soon as it falls due”, occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 4-A of the Act, (b) and, thereto reiteratedly an ascription, is, assigned qua in quick immediacy, to, the relevant mishap, the employer being fastened, with, the liability to pay compensation, vis-a-vis, the disabled workman or his successors-in-interest, as the case may be. Furthermore, vis-a-vis, sub-section (2) of Section 4-A, of, the Act, also a catena of judicial verdicts, have, settled the law, that, even when the employer, fails, to accept the liability, for hence liquidating the compensation amount, as, claimed, by the disabled workman, or his successors-in-interest, as the case may be, (c) his being enjoined to make provisional payment, to the extent he accepts his liability, and, the afore making, of, provisional payment, of, compensation, by the employer, being hence a statutorily enjoined, peremptory diktat, and, also it rather not prejudicing the right of the workman, to make any further claim, for compensation. The afore expostulation of law occurring, in, a catena of judicial verdicts, and, as stands rendered, upon, the afore valid interpretation, vis-a-vis, sub-section (1), and, of, sub-section (2), of, Section 4-A of the Act, does not obviously, hence lend any succor to the afore contention, reared before this Court by the counsel for the appellant, (d) nor any payment of compensation, under, any compromise occurring, inter se, the insurer and the claimants, rather not relieving, the employer, from, his statutorily enjoined duty, to, upon, his evident failure to comply, with, the afore mandate borne in subsection (1), and, sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Act, to rather hence, liquidate the statutory penalty, vis-a-vis, the disabled workman, or his successors-in-interest, as the case may be. Tritely, the liability to defray the statutory penalty, is, always fastenable upon, the employer, vis-a-vis, the disabled workman, or his successors-in-interest, as the case may be, (e) AND upon, his making evident lapses in meteing compliance, with, the afore mandate, borne in sub-section (1), and, in sub-section (2) of Section 4-A, of, the Act. Since, trite forthright evidence exists on record, qua the employer, not, in quick immediacy to the mishap, hence meteing compliance, with, the afore mandate, occurring in sub- section (1), and, sub-section (2) of Section 4-A, of, the Act, (f) thereupon, the mandate embodied in cause (b), to, subsection (3) of Section 4-A, of, the Act (provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter), beget its apt attraction hereat, and, when in consonance therewith, under, the impugned award, the learned Commissioner, has, assessed the statutory penalty, at, 50%, of, the compensation amount, thereupon, the impugned award, does not, suffer from any legal fallacy. Provisions of clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, read as under:- “(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 way of penalty;” Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the award impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.