Delhi High Court
Tirath Ram Ahuja Private Limited vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ... on 15 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 20379/2005
% Date of Decision: 15 July, 2009
# Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd.
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Mr. Rama Shankar for respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This writ petition filed by the management (petitioner herein) is
directed against an order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner,
Workmen Compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
directing the management to pay penalty of 50% and interest @ 6% on
the ad-hoc payment of Rs.70,881/- deposited by the management with
the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation on 25.03.2003.
2 The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that
the petitioner is in the construction business. Respondent No. 3 in whose
favour the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation was employed as a labour by the petitioner. He met with
an accident in the course of his employment with the petitioner on
26.08.1998. On account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident,
he suffered 20% earning loss as certified by the Medical Board of AIIMS.
The workman filed an application for payment of compensation on
account of injuries sustained by him in the accident before the
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation without assessing the compensation to which the
workman was entitled, directed the management to deposit ad-hoc
compensation on the basis of self-assessment. The management
pursuant to the said direction of the Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation deposited an amount of Rs.70,881/- with the
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation on 25.03.2003. This deposit was
made by the management on ad-hoc basis on the basis of its own self-
assessment. The amount so deposited by the management was released
by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation in favour of the workman
on 30.05.2003. However, the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation
vide impugned order dated 09.08.2004 without assessing the
compensation payable to the workman in terms of provisions of the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 directed the management to pay 50%
penalty and 6% interest on the amount of Rs.70,881/- within one month.
The management aggrieved by this order filed a review application
before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation which also stood
dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2005. Even in the review order which is
at pages 34-35 of the paper book, the Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation has not assessed the quantum of compensation
admissible to the workman under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
3 The management, aggrieved by the impugned orders of the
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, has filed this writ petition
seeking to set aside the said orders.
4 I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also
gone through the impugned orders and the entire case file.
5 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
management has filed a computation containing statement of
compensation payable to the workman on account of injuries sustained
by him in the accident that took place in the course of his employment
with the petitioner on 26.08.1998. A copy of this computation is made
available to the counsel appearing on behalf of the workman.
6 It is not disputed by Mr. Rama Shankar learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the workman that the Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation has not assessed the amount of compensation that was
payable to the workman on account of the injuries sustained by him in
the accident. It is also not disputed by him that the Commissioner,
Workmen Compensation vide impugned order has directed the
management to pay penalty and interest @ 6% on Rs.70,881/- without
quantifying the compensation payable to the workman under the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. This approach adopted by the
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation is wholly irrational and arbitrary.
The penalty and interest could not have been levied without first
assessing the compensation payable to the workman under the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923.
7 Mr. Rama Shankar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
workman on going through the computation containing statement of
compensation payable to the workman does not dispute that the
workman was entitled only to Rs.54,498.18 paise admissible to him under
the rules and he has already received Rs.70,881/- from the management
way back on 30.05.2003. This admission on the part of the workman
clearly shows that he had received much more than what was actually
admissible to him on account of compensation, penalty and interest on
account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place in the
course of his employment with the petitioner on 26.08.1998. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Garg learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management
submits that he has instructions from his client to forgo the excess
payment already made by the management to the workman.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation cannot be sustained either on
facts or in law. The said order suffers from perversity and is therefore set
aside. This writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
9 All pending misc. applications also stand disposed of in terms of
order passed in the main writ petition.
10 The amount deposited by the management pursuant to order by
this Court on 24.10.2005 along with interest accrued thereon be returned
by the Registry to the petitioner forthwith.
JULY 15, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
