ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. This misc. appeal has been preferred against the award of penalty at the rate of 30% of the compensation amount under Section 4 (A) (3) (b) of the Employees Compensation Act by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-E.C. Commissioner, Dhanbad in Misc. W. Case No. 31/2013. 2. Admitted facts in this case are as under: i. Chandrama Ahir died during course of his employment under the appellant on 25.03.2011 when he was drawing a salary of the workmen salary of Rs.16,695.12 per month; ii. On 28.06.2011 a compensation of Rs.3,56,980/- was deposited in the court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-E.C. Commissioner, Dhanbad. The said amount was disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased; iii. Computation of compensation was made taking Rs.4000/- as the cap in the salary as per the Industrial Dispute Act. iv. It was revised and enhanced to Rs.8000/- w.e.f. 18.01.2010. v. The heirs of the deceased preferred Misc. W. Case No. 31 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation as the minimum salary cap had been enhanced to Rs. 8000/- and the compensation was not deposited within the stipulated time as per the enhanced rate. vi. Learned Labour Court held that as the compensation had been computed taking Rs.4000/-, therefore, it was enhanced to double the amount i.e. 2 x Rs.3,56,980/- Rs.7,56,680/- It further awarded a penalty of 30% of the compensation amount as there was no justification in depositing the lesser amount in violation to the provision as laid down under Section 4 (A) (3) of the Act within one month with penal simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date when the amount fell due for payment. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in depositing the full amount was not deliberate but in ignorance of the enhanced cap which came w.e.f. 18.01.2010. The specific mandate of law is that the penalty can be imposed only when there is no justification in depositing the amount. In the present case, the amount was deposited albeit a lesser one because of ignorance of the amended provision. 3. Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has defended the impugned award and submitted that there was statutory violation for which the penalty has been imposed. In the present case, the amount was deposited albeit a lesser one because of ignorance of the amended provision. 3. Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has defended the impugned award and submitted that there was statutory violation for which the penalty has been imposed. Violation was on two counts: Firstly, even it was not deposited within one month, rather almost after three months of the said accident; and Secondly, the amount which was deposited was only half the amount which was admissible. Lastly, it is submitted that the employer is not a lay person but a Company with a battery of legal experts to assist it and, therefore, there cannot be any excuse for ignorance of the amended provision. 4. I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the claimant that the plea of ignorance cannot be sustained. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Admittedly, there was delay in depositing the amount and that too, full amount was not deposited. Therefore, learned Labour Court was fully justified in awarding the statutory penalty for delay in deposit of the amount. This Misc. Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.