1 FAO-423-2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-423-2001 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 AVTAR SINGH …Appellant Vs. SURJEET KAUR AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: None. *** HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, whereby, besides awarding compensation on account of the death of Harnam Singh, the appellant-employer was directed to pay penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Despite repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of either of the parties to assist the Court. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to examine the record as well as the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. 3. The challenge in the present appeal is essentially on the grounds that the learned Commissioner erred in imposing penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing; that the deceased was covered under a valid insurance policy and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation, interest and penalty was that of the Insurance Company; TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 FAO-423-2001 and that the appellant had bona fide believed that the insurer would satisfy the award. 4. The statutory liability to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Act is that of the employer and the same arises immediately upon the occurrence of the accident. Merely because the employer has obtained an insurance policy does not absolve him of his statutory obligation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi reported as 1997 INSC 671, has held that while the insurer may indemnify the employer in respect of compensation and statutory interest, penalty under Section 4A is attributable to the employer's own default and cannot ordinarily be fastened upon the insurer. 5. The plea that the appellant believed the Insurance Company would make payment cannot constitute sufficient cause for withholding statutory compensation. Likewise, payment of Rs.10,000/- to the widow of the deceased cannot be treated as compliance with the mandate of Section 4A. As regards the contention that no opportunity was granted before imposing penalty, it is settled that an employer is entitled to an opportunity to explain the delay. However, in the present case, the only explanation consistently put forth by the appellant before the Commissioner as well as before this Court is that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. Such a plea is legally untenable and does not constitute sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice on account of the alleged non-issuance of a separate notice. It is equally well settled that a mere procedural irregularity, in the absence of prejudice, does not vitiate the proceedings. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-423-2001 6. The remaining contentions regarding territorial jurisdiction, absence of replication and challenge to the quantum of compensation are devoid of merit and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act is maintainable only on a substantial question of law, and no such question arises in the present case. 7. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner is affirmed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 8. Copy of this order be conveyed to all the parties at the address mentioned in memorandum of parties. July 09, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document