Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Thathera, Prop. of Hemant Construction son of late Baliram Saw v. Pancham Singh, son of Inderdev Singh
2025-02-19
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
body2025
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 46 of 2019 whereby the learned tribunal has directed to pay interest and penalty under section 4(A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 aggregating to Rs. 4,29,945/-. 3. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that W.C. Case No. 27 of 2011 was preferred by the sole respondent under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the appellant in the Court of learned Commissioner of Employees Compensation -cum-Labour Court, Ranchi. He submits that the accident occurred when Naxalites attacked the worksite and destroyed the machinery deployed by this appellant for construction of the project. He submits that the said accident was reported in the several newspapers. In this background he submits that the said W.C. Case was contested and award was passed on 13.05.2013 directing to pay a sum of Rs. 3,52,414/- within 60 days from the date of order. He submits that Misc. Case No. 19 of 2013 was instituted for issuance of certificate for recovery of compensation amount and the Certificate Officer registered the case being Certificate Case No. 1 of 2017-18 and issued notice for appearance and the appellant duly complied with the direction for payment and has already paid the sum of Rs. 3,52,414/- in the year, 2018. He submits that by the impugned order in the light of Section 4(A) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 which was registered as Misc. C Case No. 46 of 2019 in which interest and penally has been further awarded. He submits that the said order has been passed in absence of any evidence. In this background he submits that substantial question of law is involved and in view of that this appeal may kindly be admitted. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the sole respondent opposes the prayer and submits that only requirement is to give opportunity and show cause for passing such order and that has been taken care of by the learned tribunal. As such there is no illegality in the order. 5.
4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the sole respondent opposes the prayer and submits that only requirement is to give opportunity and show cause for passing such order and that has been taken care of by the learned tribunal. As such there is no illegality in the order. 5. The Court finds that in W.C. Case No. 27 of 2011 award was passed on 13.05.2013 and amount was not paid for that the sole respondent was compelled to file Misc. Case No. 19 of 2013 and pursuant to that Certificate Case No. 1 of 2017-18 was registered and thereafter only amount has been paid to the sole respondent to the tune of Rs. 3,52,414/- that too in the year, 2018. Misc. Case No. 46 of 2019 has been instituted for payment of interest and penalty in the light of Section 4(A) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The learned tribunal considering all these aspects of the matter has been pleased to allow the said misc case. Looking into the order dated 01.10.2022, it transpires that the learned tribunal has issued notice to the appellant herein for filing show cause. The appellant herein appeared and filed show cause taking a common ground that the present case is barred by the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Considering all these aspects the learned tribunal relying on one of the judgment has passed the said order. Looking into Section 4(A) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the only requirement is for satisfaction of the Court with regard to delay and proper opportunity and show cause that has been taken care of by the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal has found that delay has occurred and in view of that said order has been passed. 6. The Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as such this appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.