APHC011406002016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87/2025 Between: 1. PEDDIBBOINA VENKATAMOHAN @ MOHAN RAO, S/O. VEERASWAMY, MANAGER AND PARTNER, SRI. VENKATESWARA SAW MILLS, GAVARAVARAM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. AKULA SURYANARAYANA SURIBABU AND ANOTHER, S/O. NARAYANA, EX- HELPER, SRI. VENKATESWARA SAW MILLS, KOTTAPETA WATER TANK COLONY, ANKALAGUDEM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PEDDIBOINA VEERASWAMY SWAMYJI MASTER, MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. VENKATESWARA SAW MILLS, GAVARAVARAM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersaggrieved by the order dt.18.04.2012 in W.C No.Case No.7 of 1997 passed by the 2 Commissioner for work men Compensation Act and I/C Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Eluru. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 1664 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 1481 days in filing the CMA as against the order dated 18.04.2012 in WC No.Case No.7/1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Eluru and to receive the appeal on file in the interests of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CMAMP 1665 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased dispense with filiong of certified copy of order dated 18.04.2012 in WC No.Case No.7/1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Eluru in the interests of justice IA NO: 4 OF 2016(CMAMP 23004 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DASAKA MURALI KRISHNA 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87/2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, assailing order dated 18.04.2012 passed in W.C.No.7 of 1997 determining and directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,456/- towards interest and penalty. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. The appellant herein is opposite party-1 before the competent authority. Initially, claim was initiated by the 1st respondent herein by filing W.C.No.7 of 1997 claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him during the course of employment. The said case was came to be dismissed by order dated 29.12.2001. Aggrieved by the same, appeal came to be preferred before this Court in C.M.A.No.1178 of 2002. The matter came to be remitted and eventually by order 4 dated 28.02.2025, competent authority has awarded compensation of Rs.1,18,042/- to be payable within a period of thirty (30) days against opposite parties 1 & 2 i.e., appellant and the 2nd respondent herein. 5. The 2nd respondent later insured and the liability therefore stood against the appellant, as he did not comply with the said order, which necessitated the 1st respondent-workmen to file W.P.No.8039 of 2008 before this Court for implementation of the said order. The same came to be disposed with a direction to the competent authority for passing appropriate orders ensuring implementation after following due procedure. Consequently, competent authority initiated steps for recovery, as result the appellant had deposited the compensation amount on 27.03.2010, nearly after five years of passing of the order. As the order was not implemented on time, the workmen got again moved application before the competent authority for awarding interest and penalty under Section 4A(3)(a)(b) of Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923. After notice to the appellant, the competent authority passed impugned order dated 18.04.2012 awarding interest from 28.03.2005 till 15.10.2010 and also 5 penalty thereon. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 6. Heard Sri P. Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that before passing the impugned order, the appellant was not provided with proper opportunity to contest the matter and that the competent authority has not clearly expressed or formed opinion in imposing penalty of Rs.59,021/-. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent tried to justify the impugned order by contending that admittedly, it is a clear case of deliberate delay in complying the original order dated 28.02.2025. Therefore, as very statute provides for imposing interest and penalty for such delay, the order suffers from no infirmity. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 10. The only point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the Commissioner, 6 determining interest and imposing penalty under Section 4A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, suffers from perversity? 11. Section 4A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under: “Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (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 by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.” Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, "scheduled bank" means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934).” 12. Aforesaid provision clearly mandates that in case the employer is in default in paying the compensation as determined under the Act payable within one month, the employer is obligated to pay interest for the delayed period under sub clause (a) and in addition is also subjected to penalty under Sub clause (b). The only legal requirement is that the competent authority, 7 before imposing penalty, has to form an opinion that the delay did not occur at the instance of employer in paying the compensation awarded. Admittedly, in the present case, the order of compensation was initially passed on 28.02.2025 determining a sum of Rs.1,18,042/- payable within 30 days, which ultimately came to be paid only on 27.03.2010. Thereby, there is a clear delay of nearly five years in paying the compensation. There is no discretion left for the competent authority under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act in awarding interest for the said delay caused. Rightly, by impugned order, interest came to be assessed from 28.03.202 till 15.09.2010 for Rs.77,435/-. Insofar as the determination of the penalty is concerned, the competent authority has formed an opinion that appellant was in clear default in making the payment of compensation and that the delay was not justified in any manner, in coming to conclusion of imposing penalty. The provisions provide that the penalty shall not exceed 50% of the sum of arrears and interest thereon. 13. Therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs.59,021/-, which is less than 50% of the arrears of award and interest thereon, is clearly within the aforesaid prescription and the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, this Court does not 8 find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 06.08.2025 ANS 9 232 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87/2025 Date: 06.08.2025 ANS