ORDER
1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated April 17,1993 of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Dewas, passed in Compensation Case No. 2/91, where by the Labour Court exercised power under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and directed payment of Rs. 1,03,990 towards damages sustained by respondent and Rs. 50,000 as penalty for non-payment of the same.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a Worker and was under the employment of appellant Bank Note Press, Dewas. He sustained injuries during the course of employment. During the employment the Acid fell down and damaged the eyes. It appears the left eye has been completely damaged. The right eye has also been partially damaged. He was treated at various places, however, eyesight of one eye could not be regained. He was getting Rs. 1263 p.m./ as wages.
The respondent worker filed application for compensation under Sections 4 and 4A of Workmen’s Compensation Act. The fact of disability was denied by the employer i.e., appellant here. The learned Judge found that the worker sustained injury during the course of employment and that he was getting Rs. 1263 p.m. and has assessed the damage as above. Hence this appeal.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that worker is still under the em
ployment of the appellant. They have paid compensation as determined by the Labour Court and, therefore, the imposition of penalty is neither proper nor just.
As against it learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was delay in payment and, therefore, the penalty has rightly been imposed.
4. Section 4A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides 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 may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.”
5. Here in this case the appellant has admittedly made payment after the liability was fixed. There is no dispute as to the amount of compensation adjudged by the learned Labour Court. The imposition of penalty is within the discretion of the Labour Court but the discretion has to be exercised judicially. It is not always necessary to impose full penalty. Here the employer is Public Undertaking. No person including officer incharge is personally interested in the matter. They have nothing to gain by withholding the payment. The bodies under Public Undertakings, Corporations and the State work through their officers. They are required to obtain sanction as per procedure from their superior authority. The workers and the employees dealing with such matters are not so vigilant and that generally causes delay and, therefore, due concession has to be given to these factors unless the delay has been purposely caused by some officer or employee having Jurisdiction over the matter. There is no evidence to show that delay was purposely caused or with design to harm the worker. The Management not only help the worker, but extend all facilities for his treatment. It appears he was sent to Delhi for treatment and, therefore, in such a situation the penalty of Rs. 50.000 which is about 50% of the amount of compensation is uncalled for. The worker can be compensated by awarding interest for the period of making delay in the payment at the commercial rate of 15 % p. a.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant admitted that there is time gap of nearly 6 months in making payment and, therefore, in our opinion in order to do justice with the parties an interest for the period of 6 months @ 15 % which comes to nearly Rs. 8,000 would be just amount over and above the amount of compensation awarded to be paid to the respondent worker.
7. The appeal therefore, partly succeeds. The amount of compensation awarded is hereby affirmed, however, direction in respect of payment of penalty is set aside. Instead it is directed that the appellant shall pay Rs. 8000 for the delay caused in making payment within 2 months from today. In case the payments are not made to the respondent within 2 months from today the Respondent shall further be entitled to interest at the rate of 24 % p. a. from the date of order of this Court. Counsel fee Rs. 500.