The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR J(,KANTT CTVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.72a of 2OL3 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 2l'12'2006 passed in W.C.No. 14 of 2OO5 on the file of the Commissionet' for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Comrnissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, Circle-Il : T' Anjaiah Bhavan R.'I'.C. X Roads, Hlderabad (for short the Commissioner')' this appeal is prefelred by applicants (of deceased)'

2. Heard Mr. Raja Vish'x'anathan, Iearned counsel for appellants and Mr. Koushik Konduri, learned cottnsel representing Mr. N.Sreedhar Reddy, Ieamed Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. Applicant No. 1 is legally u'edded wife of deceased' applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are children, applicant No'5 is the mother. Deceased (M.Chcnnaih) u/as employed as Junior Lineman under respondent No' 1 i e', Divisional Engineer (Operation) (The then APCPDCL), Mahabubnagar' During the 2 JAK,J (1. ,4.A.No.728 of 2013 transformer, about 10:00 course of employment i.e., on 23.02.2000 (:r. hours), while putting jumpers to the distributior he slipped and fell down due to electric shock esulting in a head injury. Incident happened at Damagnrl - Village, FIR bearing No.6 of 2000 came to be registered b_r the police of Madoor, Mahabubnagar District. Government Mr dical officer, Kodangal, conducted post mortem. Deceased vas aged 35 years, drawing monthly u,age of Rs.3,654/-.

4. Respondent No. 1 did not clispute the err plo-yment of deceased and the accident. Deceased rvas c,ered under Janatha Group Insurance policy for an itmount of Rs.l,OO,OOO/-. Compensation of Rs.3,58,076l_ rvr; claimed by applicants.

5. Commissioner examined pWl & pW2 for appliqs615, considered Exs.Al to ,{6, awarded a com I rnsation of Rs.3,58,774/- to be paid within (30) days from trc receipr of the order. Commissioner held that if respor clenrs paid Rs. I,00,0O0/- as compensation under Jan,t ha Group 3 JAK,J c.M.A.No.728 of 2013 Insuralce Scheme, respondents were directed to deposit the balance ainount of compensation of Rs'2'58'774/-' Commissioner's directions to deduct from the compensation amount, the amount of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- is the issue' Other contention raised is the rate of interest' tearned counsel for appellants submitted that deceased 6. was working as Junior Lineman, while putting jumpers to the distribution transformer at Damagnur Village, slipped and fell, due to electric shock, received head injury and was taken to trospitat was declared dead. Post mortem was conducted on 23.O2.2OOO. It is further sul-rmitted that there is no dispute with regard to the employment of deceased as Junior Lineman' It is also submitted that [he deceased was covered in the JanathaGrouplnsrrrat.rcePolicyforamountofRs.l,o0,o0o/-. T.ItiscontendedthattheCommissioner,havingawardeda compensation, directed deduction of Rs' 1'00'000/- from the compensation and the same is bad in law and illegal' It is further submitted tha-t the Janta Group Insurance 'Policy 4 )AK,J (1. /.A.No.728 of 2013 premium" was deducted by the pay arld account; office of the Department from the monthly salary of the empl;,ee. A copy of Board Proceedings (p&G-per) Ms.No. 173 dated r,6.1r.1996 is produced.

8. Inviting the attention of this Court to prorr edings dared 11.10.1999, it is submitted that as the premium /as deducted from his sala4r amount of Rs.1,OO,OOO/_ is or t r and above Compensation awarded and the Commissiorr :r erred in directing the deduction of Rs. I,OO,OOO/_ from he amounts awarded. It is further submitted that the Comm r sioner could not have directed for such deduction as there is _ro clause or regulation or rule for such deduction nor any rr( ntion in the Board proceedings dated I 1.10.1g99, that such arr runt is to be deducted from the compensation. It is arso subnr tted that as per Section a(A) of workrnen's compensation A,:, 1923, (for short 'the ActJ, the rate of interest to be paid on (],rnpensation amount from due date is 12% per annur. and the Commissioner has not mentioned the interest in thr order. 5 JAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013 Learned counsel for respondents submitted that accident g. occurred due to the negligence of the d'eceased employee' That hehasnotfollowedtheprocedurewhilegivingjumperstothe distribution transformers' It is further submitted that respondent-O tganizatiorl is not liable to pay compensation' for the negligence on the part of deceased lt is also submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,OO,OO0/-, payable under Janatha Group Insurance Scheme, and its deduction from the compensation awarded is proper, that there is no inhrmit-v in the order of the Commissioner in directing such deduction'

10. It is submitted that respondent No l is not an employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act' [t is further contended that the deceased did not follou' the procedure while changing the jumpers, and negligence of deceased is evident and as such the respondent-Organization is not liable to pay the inhrm it5' in the order and compensation. That there is no interference is not necessitated ' 6 JAK,J I vl.A.No.728 of 2013 I I . Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

12. Oo 23.02.2O00, one Chennaiah (Decease,l , u.orking as Junior Lineman with respondent No. l_Organisat on, met with an accident, while giving jumpers to thc distribution transformer at Damagnur village. Due to elect.< shock, he fell from a height of 10, feet, suffered a head injury resulting in death' on 23.o2.2ooo, post mortem q,as conductt:, I at Kodangal by the Govemmsnl Medical Oflicer. FIR No.6 of 1 0O0 came to be registered by the police of Madoor, Mahabubrr rgar District. ln the counter alfidavit of respondents, it is a lmitted that deceased rvas u,orking as Lineman, met with a;t accident on 23.O2.2OOO, died in the fatal accident (observed fr rrn the order of the Commissioner). 13- A separate counter is fiIed by respondent \,1o. 1 . In the counrer of respondent No. 1, it is admitted tJ.at I be deceased $'as employed and the accident resulted in his cieath. lt is obsen,ed from the order that there rvas a plea in the counter <-7 7 IAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013 alfidavit that tlle accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased ald not liable for payment of compensatron'

14. PW2 is one G.Ravindra Chary, a Lineman' he was examined and he deposed that deceased died due to electric shock.PW2wascrossexaminedbytherespondentsbutthey could not elicit anything contrary' [t is observed from the order of the Commissioner that the documents frled by the applicants establish the employment, the accident and the death' tt is further observed that respondents could not disprove the claims of apPlicants.

15. Point for consideration is u'hether the amount of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- directed to be deducted from the compensation amount is proper. By a Board Proceedings dated 11 10'1999' the Group Janatha Personal Accident Policy' was reneu'ed for a period of three years from 01'L2'lggg to 30 11'2002' the proceedings are as follows: 'In B'P (P&G-Per Ms'No l73 Dated was accorded for reneu'al o[ 26.17.1996 G.J.P'A. Policy offered by M/s National Insurance Company l-irn-itea for a plriod o[ 3 yearc lrom I 12 1996 to 3O-11-1999 at premium rate o[ Rs 62/- per ^pptou"i JA(,J rl M.A.No.728 of 2013 -such each employee which includes agency conrl rission. This Policy covers the Board Emiloy;" t; ;;;'th; risk due to accidents not only auring ttre-<,,;;;.^;; employment but also outside as"road , ,;i;;";; burns due to fire, Drowning in water, a"rt., ar"-io currcnt shock. snake bite, dog bite, riots, ,.. i;;; ;; mrlrtants and murders ald also total ol parriJ permanent-disability sustained in accidents .a ,n. amounts of insurance cover payab.le ,.ra". t ,"-"aiJ pohcy are as mentioned in ttre S.p.citea 2. The period of G.J.p.A. policy mentrc ted in p_ar-a(lJ ABOV^E expires by 30-1t-1999 M/". t ;;;"; lnsurance^^Company Limited in their Letter dtd.29.9.1999 have offered to extend the p,,f i, y for-, furthcr period of rhree years from l.iz.. igs ri 30. I I .2002 at a premiuni rate of Rs. 129 .( ( t _ ner each employee which includes ,g"""y "";, i""ii". Tl-re arnount of insurance core. payable ur, e. th" sard policy are as follows: L Dcath due to accident 2 Lc'ss of use of two limbs/ sigh t rn both eyes due to accident 3. Losc u sc of one limb/sight in one : e) e d uc to accident : Rs.1,0O,r ,00/- : Rs.l,0() )0Ol.- Rs.50, ) )O/- -+. Pcrmanent total disablement due: to ac( tdcnt Rs.50,o,rOl- "rnr "o,r.r" ti-r. nptnenSdO The policy offered by M/s. National In:;r rance _. Company Limited, .y"." against risk on 24 hours basis whethi 'thJ cmployces are or on duty or otherwise .. ,".ilo death/injuries due 6 ;iect;;;;;: l::l1.,lrl " ;t('crc,.r)tat talls. road accidents, explosions, drc vning ..\\irr(-r, snake bite, dog bite, riots, actic rs ,i rnrlitan ts and mu rders. Aftcr careful consideration, the Transro ssion I Corporation accepts the offer N; ;;;; Insttrance Co. Ltd. for three year 'oofi.,l Jri premiLrm rare o[ Rs. t2g.6o/ - (Ruiees oI;--;',I,;;;; l,T:': :.1:: j.d paise sixty oniyl per .".h i;y;; r\ nr(.n ll)(.tLtcle agency r.ommission with the .i 1.ncy M/;. -"f ",1 - 9 JAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013 Services of Mr.K. Srinivas Reddy, H'No 134/2RT, Sanjeevnagar Reddy Colony, Hyderabad-S0o O38 The G.J.P.A. potlcy itratt come into force for a period of three years from l-12-1999 onwards with the terms mentioned in para 2 above. The G'J'P A Polioy covers all monthly Paid employees of the A.P.TRANSCO. 4. All the Pay Drawing Officers are requested to deduct an amount of Rs.129.6O/- (Rupees one hundred and twenty nine arrd paise sixty only) p91 head from the salary/wages of all monthly paid employees of the AFTRANSCO after obtainiing wriiten authorization from the employed person from the salary for t]le month of October, 1999 without fail towafos premium for three years G'J'P'A'Policy- commencing fr orn l-12-99. The Speciman form of authorization is enclosed. They are requested to arrange to remit the amount recovered from the emplo:yees together with the list of employees from whorrr the p.e-ir.., is recovered to the Senior Civuk Manager, National Insurance Company Lld D.O.N;.[I. 3rd Floor, Regency House, Somajiguda' Hyderabad-SOo O82. 5. This order issues with the concurrence of Director (Finance), Vide. V.O.No 593 /D(FI199 ' Dtd.7 Io 99 "

16. A perusal of the Group Janatha- Personal Accident Policy' it can be inferred that employees were covered under the scheme offered by M/s. National Insurance Company Limited' A death due to accident, electrocutiorr is covered, in the present casedeathisduetoelectrocution,thisisnotdisputed'At Paragraph No.4 of the proceedings (supra), it is reflected that all the Pay Drawing Offrcers were requested to deduct an amount 10 JAK,J ( . /.A.No.728 of 2013 of Rs.129.6O paise from the sa_lary / wages of all monttrly paid employees of APTRANSCO, after obtaining writterr authorization from the employed person. The salary/ wage s o[ an employee are paid by thc Organization for services render rd. Once the amount o[ Rs.l29.60 paise is deducted from the : alary/wages, it can be inferred thar it is not the Organization ul ich is paying the premium amount, but the employee is payinS; the premiurn amount under the Group Irrsurance Scheme fror r his pocket. There is no contribution of an equal amount or. any amount from the Department under the scheme. In the at sence of any amount being cor-rtributed by the Department, it cz nnot be said that the Comrnissioner rightly deducted the amor.rnt of Rs' 1,00,000/- lrom the compensation awarded ur der trre Act. The Commissioner's act of deduction is nct in cor l onaace rvith the scheme

17. Generalll, lrrsurance polic_v is an independe I t policy, the amount paid under the policy cannot be said to be r part of the compensation rrr.rder the Workmen,s Compens;r ion Act. A direction for deduction cannot be given. Commiss ioner fell in 11 JAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013 error in directing the deduction of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-, Insurance amount is paid by Insurance Company to the person who suffered the accident. Categories under amount has to be paid is reflected in the Proceedings. Nowhere, it is mentioned in the Board proceedings that the Department (APTRANSCO) has any role in contributing towards the insurance premium' This Court is not inclined to toe the line of the Commissioner that amounts be deducted from the compensation arnount. The compensation awarded is under a statute, the amount of Rs.1,OO,0OO/- is insurance amount under a Group Scheme, which is, independent of the compensation awarded under the statute, both cannot be clubbed together, the Commissioner fell in error in directing the deduction.

18. There is no reference to the Board proceedings in the entire order of the Commissioner, without referring to the contents of Board proceedings or discussion, Commissioner passed the order directing to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,O0,0OO/-. A complete non-application of mind by Commissioner is apparent. Commissioner lvas under a -J.2 JAKJ C.l 4.A.No.728 of 2013 misconception that the insurance amount has to be deducted. The Commissioner losr sight of the fact that th, premium is paid by the employee and not by the DepartrrL, nt, once the premium is paid from emplovee,s salar5r, insuranr: r amount has to be awarded to the employee. The extent c,l direction of deducting the amount from the compensation au,z rded is liable to be set aside, and accordingly set aside.

19. The other contention raised by the applic ants is with regard to the award of interest on the compensati,t r amount, as seen from the order of Commissioner interest I rrtion is not forthcoming and rate of interest is not reflected rhe relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner is as folb vs: "The Respondents are therelore directed to de amount ot Rs.3.58.O58 / + Rs.Z 16/ towards l totaling ro Rs.3,58,77.+/ (Rupees Three lakhs Ii: thousand seven hundreci ;rnd seventy four on]v compensation under thc provisions of the W.C.F< (fO) days o[ receipt of this order. The Comyrr should be deposited in favour of CVI Dy.Commissioncr o[ Labour, RR Zone by way of DraJt drawn on any Nationalised B'ank Il thc Resporrdenrs hage already I I{*llbad 1,OO,OO0/ as compensritron due to the covera3 deceased under ..lanata Group lnsurance Schen are directed to deposit the remaining arr.r compensation of IRs. 2,.58,774/ (Rupees Two l:l - nsit an rurt fee f, eight -owards : within nsation I and )emand rble at aid Rs. ' of the e, they unt of hs fifty 13 JAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013 eight thousand seven hundred and seventy four only) along with proof of pa]'rn€nt of Rs. I,0O,OOO/- to the claimants as stated in along with proof of pa5rment of Rs. I,OO,0OO/- to the claimants as stated in their counter."

20. It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. u. Sibg Georget, while considering the aspect o[ component of interest under the Act held as follows: "9. Now, coming back to the question when does thc payment of compensation fall due and what would be the point for the commenc€ment of interest, it may be noted that neither the decision in Mubasir Ahmed [(2OO7) 2 SCC 349 : (2OO7l I SCC {m6S) 6431 nor the one in Mohd. Nasir [(2OO9) 6 SCC 28O : (2oo9l 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : {2OO9l 2 SCC (Cri) 987) can be said to provide any valid guidelines becau se both the decisions were rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of this Court by which the issue was concluded. As early as in 1975 a four- Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976) 1 SCC 2E9 : 1976 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 l,ab lC 2221 directly answered the question. ln paras 7 and 8 of the decision it was held and observed as follows: (Srinivas Sabata case {(1976) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 t,a.b lC 2221 , SCC pp.29t-921 "7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub- section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation il'personal injury is caused to a workrnan by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment'. It was not the case of the emplo-ver that the right to compensati,on was taken a\^,ay under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil '1zo Lz1 tz scc ;+o t4 JAKJ C.lr' A.No.728 of 2013 court for damages, in respect of the inj _r 1,, against the employer or any o Ier person. The employer therefore became lirr rle to pay the compensation as soon as l1e aforesaid personal injury w-- caused to lte workman by the accident ,-_rich admitt,: [y arose out of and in the course of lre employment. It is therefore futile to conte rd that the compensation did not falt due t r til after the Commissioner's order dated li 5- 1969 under Section 19. lvhat the sec,i )n provides is that if any question arises in a ty proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to l te amount or duration of the compensatio.r ;t shall, in default of agreement, be settlec )y the Commissioner. There is therefore not]Lr rg to justify the argumenr rhar rhe employ e ,s liability to pay compensation under Sectio 1 3, in respect of the injury, rvas suspended u r til after the settlement contemplated by Sec:i rn 19. The appellant $,as rhus liable to F ly compensation as soon as the aJorcl;i id personal injury v,as carrsed to the appellr rt, and there is no justilication for the argun ( nt to the contral/- 8. It was the duty of thc appcllant, ur ( er Section 4-A(1) of rhe Act, ro pay tre compensation at the rate provided by Sec:i rn 4 as soon as the personal injury was caus:d to the respondent. He failed to do so. Whz t is worse, he did not er,.en make a provisiru a1 pa),rnent under sub-section (21 ol' Sectio 1 + for, as has been stated, he went to the e-K..( nt of taking the fa.lse pleas that the responc ( nt was a casual contractor and that the accic ( nt occurrcd solcly bccause oI his negligerr e.. Then there is the furtlrer fact that he parc to heed to the respondent s personal approa :l.r for obtaining the compensittion. It u'ill )e recalled that the respondent was driven to t re necessity of making an application to t re Commissioner for settling the claim, and ev:r.r there the appellzrnt raised a frivol: rs objection as to the .lurisdiction o[ t re 15 JAK,J C.M.A.tto.728 of 2013 Commissioner and Prevailed on respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty." (emPhasis suPPlied)

21. It is pertinent to note that Honble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricitg Board o;nd Another ts. Vo'lso,la K' and Another2, while dealing with the claim for compensation, held as follows: "2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with thc claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act have uniforrnly taken the vrew that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident. 3. A four .ludge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata' (1976) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 521 sPeaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an cmployer becomes liabte to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to thc lvorkmarl by thc accidcnt which al'ose out of and in the course of emplo5rment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compen saLion is the date of the accident and not the date ol adjudication of tJ:e claim. .1 A tu'o-Judge Bench o[ this Court in New lndia Asslt rance Co . Ltd. v. V.K. Neelakandan '1rs9e1 a scc zsc 16 .,AK,J C. 4 A.No.728 of 2013 [CAs Nos. t69O4 09 of 1996 decided on (r I l_ 19961 however, took the r,,iew that the Workmen's_Compensation Act being a sFc )ral legislation for the benefit of the wor-kmen, rhe benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to -he workmen and not the compensation ir t k:h was payable on the date of the accidenl. .lie two-Judge Bench in Neelakandan casc [ ( ]As Nos. 16904-09 of 1996 decided on O_t t_i; tO; however, did not take notice of the judgrn:ni of the larger Bench in eratap ruariin'Sir gh D^eo case Ii{1926) t SCC 289 , iezO SCc 1r, .S1 52].as it presumably was not brought rir he notice of their L<.rrdships. Be that as it ma,, rn view of the categorical larv latd down by he larger- Bench in pratap Singh Deo ..se l(1976) I SCC 289: 1976 SCC (L&Sl Slj he y-rew expressed by the two-Jua!. a"n,.i, - Neelakandan case I CAs Nos. 169o4_t),1 of 1996 decided on 6-11-19961 is nor corre(.t 5. Our attention has also been drar,vn r a judgmenr of the Full Bench of the Kerala gh Court in United India Insurance Co. Lrr. i,. Alavi [(1998] I KLT 95l (FB)l wherein rht: ! r Bench precisely considered the s,r lre question and examined both the abo!,e n(lr ld judgments. It took the !,iew that rhe in r rtd workman becomes entiticd to compensation the moment he su I i rs personal injuries of the types conrempl..t td !V the provisions of rhe Workm,: ,s Compensation Act and it is the amour.r cf compensation payable on the date of t re accident and not the arnount o[ compensirri rn payable on account of the amendmint rn r lc in 1995, which is relevant. The decision ol. r re Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, rr, r rr: it is in accord with thJjudgmenr o[ r rt: ext€nt larger Bench of this Court in p."utap N,,,. ., Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [( t9761 I S( C] 289 : 1976 SCC (L&Sl 521 la1.s do$,n i .o correct law and we approve it.. 77 JAK,J C.M.A.No.728 of 2013

22. Liability to pay compensation arises from the date of accident. Compensation has to be deposited within one month from the date of accident as per the larv declared by the Horrble Apex Court, if it is pard/deposited rvithin one month from the date of accident, no interest is liable to be paid. If the amount is paid after one month, interest has to be paid in terms of Section 4 of the Act. It is made clear that this Court has not ventured into the aspect o[ quantum of compensation awarded, there is no dispute raised at the Bar with regard to the quantum.

23. The Commissioner has arvarded a compensation arnount of Rs.3,58,7741-. Out of u'hich Rs.1,0O,000/- was deducted arrd the balance amoLlnt was directed to be paid i.e., Rs.2,58,774/-. The Department is liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the compensation amount awarded i.e., Rs.3,58,774/-. Such interest has to be paid after one month from the date of accident till the date of payment (date of accident causing death was ci.. 23.02.2000, liability arose for payment of compensation fiom 23.O2.2OOO. Amount if paid 18 JAK,J C. iv A.No.728 of 2013 within 23. 03.2000, no interest is liable to be paid. If the arnount is paid after 23.03.2000 interest @ l2%o hr; to be paid.) 24 . The insurance amount of Rs. I ,0O,OOO/ - rv,t ; directed to be deducted by the Commissioner from the c tmpensation amount awarded. Hence, the insurance amount ,r,ith interest (t) 9'h per annum shall be paid one month from tt e date of the order of the Commissioner till the date of the payrr :nt 25, To the extent as reasoned above, the r rder of the Commissioner is modilied. The amounts shall be raid u,ithin a penod of three (03) months from the derte of receip i of a cop-v of this order. Needless to state that if any amounts z re 1:aid, they shall be given credit while payments are being mac e,

26. Applicants permitted t) application(s)/representation(s) seeking the .rnounts, the amounts shall be paid as directed above 19 JAKJ C.M.A-No.728 of 2013

27. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, A.V.S.S.C.S.M SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Commissioner of Labour Ranga Reddy District, Circle-ll: Bhavan R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Mr. Raja Vishwanathan, Advocate [OpUCl 3. One CC to Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy Standing Counsel [OeUC] 4. Two CD Copies SA DL/ Assistant T. Anjaiah a .a ,R TilE s ( 6 t 7 ili:a )ryF \') () o ,..,. * ( tl * HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.728 of 2013 ALLOWNG CMA to\ "L &l