ORDER : – This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Employer under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved of award dated 16-9-2014 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 170/WC Act/2004/Fatal on a singular ground that no order for imposing penalty could have been passed without giving a separate notice to the present appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras decided on 27-1-2004 in C.M.A No. 41/1996 Management of M/s Mahalakshmi Builders vs. A. Govindaswamy wherein it is held that if the Commissioner does not issue notice and provide an opportunity to the Employer before directing it to pay the penalty then the Commissioner would be failing in his duty to follow the procedure prescribed under the law. He also places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and others, AIR 1997 SC 3854 wherein it is held that without giving notice, no amount of penalty can be imposed on the Employer. He lastly places reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in M/s Shri Ram Dal Mills and others vs. Rama, 2003(3) M.P.H.T 269 to bolster his contention. 3. Reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 on the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Telecom (General Manager) vs. Vidya Devi and others, II (2006) ACC 65 wherein it is held that it is not necessary that a notice be issued to the Employer. The Commissioner may frame an issue whether the claimant is entitled to penalty or not. This itself would amount to giving sufficient opportunity to the Employer. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Siby George and others in Civil Appeal No. 5669 of 2012 (Arising Out of S.L.P (C) No. 9516/2010) decided on 31-7-2012 wherein it is held that if in the opinion of the Commissioner, there is no justification for the delay then the Commissioner may direct that the Employer shall in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon pay a further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Siby George and others (supra), the decision of Four Judges Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another, AIR 1976 SC 222 was referred wherein it is held that the Employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the Workman by the accident, which arose out of and in the course of the employment. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that earlier the case of the workmen was dismissed and thereafter the matter was remanded by the High Court vide order dated 7-8-2013. Non-applicant No. 1 (appellant herein) was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27-9-2013. Thus, the question, which arises for consideration is that when the non-applicant No. 1 (appellant herein) remained absent and ex parte, his application was accepted on cost of Rs. 300/- vide order dated 9-7-2014. Non-applicant No. 1 (appellant herein) was given an opportunity of leading evidence on 18-7-2014. On 4-8-2014, his counsel Shri Sharad Gupta had expressed that he did not wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses of the claimants. Shri Pawan Samdariya was examined and cross-examined. Arguments were heard on 4-9-2014. Award was passed on 16-9-2014 when again the non-applicant No. 1 (appellant herein) was absent then the question arises for consideration as to how an absentia notice can be given to a party to afford him an opportunity of hearing on the aspect of imposition of penalty. 5. There is no explanation from the side of the appellant about his recurring and long absence. The factum of the accident is not disputed and it was the responsibility of the appellant to have deposited the amount of compensation with the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The Labour Court has imposed penalty in case of default of payment of amount of compensation within forty five days of passing of the award. The Labour Court has clearly mentioned that the awarded compensation of Rs. 2,36,950/- along with 12% interest to be computed from expiry of thirty days of the accident is to be deposited within forty five days and if the said compensation is not deposited within forty five days then the penalty equivalent to 25% of the awarded amount will be payable. 2,36,950/- along with 12% interest to be computed from expiry of thirty days of the accident is to be deposited within forty five days and if the said compensation is not deposited within forty five days then the penalty equivalent to 25% of the awarded amount will be payable. Appellant has filed this appeal after considerable delay of more than 72 days. Admittedly, he was absent on the date of passing of the award and accordingly in his absence when the award was passed then no notice could have been given to a party, who choose to remain absent. Even otherwise, the amount of penalty is in case of default of payment and that is equitable, just and correct under the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgments of M/s Shri Ram Dal Mills and others vs. Rama (supra), Management of M/s Mahalakshmi Builders vs. A. Govindaswamy (supra) and Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and others (supra) are distinguishable on their own facts. Here, the appellant has not justified the reason for delay and, therefore, when imposition of penalty is examined then that cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary calling for any interference in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed.