High Court dismissed the appeal. Then it rewrote the award anyway.

Two Shots, One Accident, and a High Court That Went Too Far

When Ajaya Kumar Das climbed onto a truck to load sand on 5 June 2000, he didn't expect to spend the next twenty-two years fighting for his compensation. The truck met with an accident. Multiple injuries to his abdomen and kidney. Hospitalisation. Surgery. A claim for workmen's compensation that, after sixteen years, the Labour Commissioner finally allowed: Rs 2,78,926 with 12% interest from the date of the accident. That interest — the money that made the award meaningful — was what the High Court of Orissa took away. And the Supreme Court had to give it back.

The stakes were simple: a labourer with 85% permanent disability, his earning capacity reduced to zero, versus an insurance company that filed its appeal 619 days late. The High Court dismissed that appeal as time-barred. Then, inexplicably, it deleted the interest component from the award. The labourer and his spouse had to travel all the way to the Supreme Court to get the interest restored. The Supreme Court did more than that. It awarded Rs 50,000 in costs against the insurer and sent a clear message: you cannot use procedural games to starve a workman of what the law mandates.

What the Labour Commissioner Actually Decided

The claim was filed before the Workmen Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Odisha. On 24 May 2016, the Commissioner allowed the claim. The award was Rs 2,78,926. But the critical part was the interest: 12% per annum from the date of the accident — 5 June 2000 — until the date of deposit. That interest was not a bonus. It was the law.

Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is clear: compensation must be paid when it falls due. If the employer fails to pay within one month of the accident, interest at the rate prescribed by the Act runs from the date of the accident. The Commissioner applied this correctly. The insurer, however, had other plans.

The Insurer's 619-Day Delay — and the High Court's Strange Move

The insurer filed an appeal before the High Court of Orissa. The appeal was 619 days late. The High Court, by order dated 11 April 2018, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. That should have been the end of the matter. The award stood. The interest stood.

But the High Court did something extraordinary. It said: "The appeal is dismissed on limitation. However, the order for payment of interest is deleted except the accrued interest." In other words, the High Court dismissed the appeal — meaning it had no jurisdiction to hear the merits — and then proceeded to modify the merits by deleting the interest component. The learned Single Judge gave no reasoning for this. The judgment simply deleted the interest.

The labourer filed a review petition. The High Court dismissed it on 8 February 2019, on the ground that the appellant had already withdrawn the entire awarded amount with accrued interest. That reasoning missed the point entirely. The interest from the date of the accident — the 12% per annum that had been running for nearly eighteen years — was precisely what had been taken away.

What Each Side Argued Before the Supreme Court

The appellants — Ajaya Kumar Das and his spouse — approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. Their counsel argued that the High Court, having dismissed the appeal on limitation, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the merits of the Commissioner's order. The deletion of interest was without authority and contrary to the settled position of law under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The insurer, represented by its counsel, did not seriously contest the limitation point. Instead, it argued that the interest should run only from the date of adjudication of the claim, not from the date of the accident. This was a familiar argument — one that had been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court.

The Doctrine the Supreme Court Applied

The Bench, authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari concurring, laid down two clear propositions.

First: No merits jurisdiction when appeal dismissed on limitation. When an appellate court dismisses an appeal on the ground of limitation, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the merits of the impugned order. This includes modifying awards of interest or compensation. The High Court's deletion of interest was therefore without jurisdiction. The appeal was dead on arrival. The court could not resurrect it to tinker with the award.

Second: Interest under Section 4A runs from the date of the accident. The Supreme Court relied on three precedents. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 298, the Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George (2012) 12 SCC 540, the Court established that compensation falls due from the date of the accident. And in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022 — just weeks before this judgment — the Court reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of the accident, rejecting the submission that interest should run only after expiry of 30 days from the date of the accident.

The ratio was clear: Section 4A mandates interest from the date of the accident. Period. The Commissioner's award was correct. The High Court's interference was not.

THE PLAY: If you are a workman or your counsel, ensure the claim petition explicitly pleads interest under Section 4A from the date of the accident — not from the date of the Commissioner's order — and cite Saberabibi and Siby George at the first hearing itself.

The Supreme Court's Operative Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court's direction deleting the interest. It restored the Commissioner's order for payment of interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident. And it directed the insurer to pay costs of Rs 50,000 within four weeks, together with the remaining award component inclusive of interest.

The Court did not stop there. In its obiter, it observed: "A well-resourced insurance company has used its position of dominance to evade the cause of justice. Such strategies must be eschewed." This was a signal. The Court was telling institutional litigants — insurance companies, corporations, government entities — that using procedural delays to starve vulnerable claimants of their lawful dues will attract costs. Not just the interest that was wrongly deleted, but an additional penalty for the abuse of process.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder of a basic procedural principle: an appeal dismissed on limitation is a dead appeal. You cannot revive it to modify the merits. If the High Court had wanted to consider the merits, it should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal. It did neither. It dismissed the appeal on limitation and then, without jurisdiction, modified the award. That is a jurisdictional error that the Supreme Court will correct.

For CFOs and founders of companies that employ workmen, this judgment carries a compliance message. The Workmen's Compensation Act is not a suggestion. Interest under Section 4A runs from the date of the accident, not from the date of adjudication. If you delay payment, you will pay interest for the entire period. And if you challenge the award on technical grounds — like limitation — you risk not only losing the appeal but also being saddled with costs.

For the workman, the lesson is simpler: do not give up. Ajaya Kumar Das waited sixteen years for the Commissioner's award. Then he had to fight the High Court's error. Then he had to go to the Supreme Court. The system worked, but it took twenty-two years. The Supreme Court restored what was always his: the interest from the date of the accident.

The Bottom Line

When an appellate court dismisses an appeal on limitation, it cannot touch the merits — and under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, interest on compensation runs from the date of the accident, not from the date of adjudication, a position so settled that any deviation invites costs.