S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Rangareddy district Zone ( the Commissioner for short) in W. C. Case No. 155 of 1988 dated 18/12/1990. The brief facts are as follows :-

( 2 ) THE respondent who, according to the appellant herein, was working as a helper in the rice mill of the appellant and was involved in an accident on 3/06/1987. He underwent treatment and as a result of the said accident his left hand had to be imputed up to below elbow. The Doctor s certificate shows that the stump length bellow the elbow is 10" form olecranon. This is not disputed. On this basis the injury suffered by the respondent falls under Item 4 of Part II of Schedule I to the Act which gives the list of injuries "deemed to result in permanent partial disablement". The percentage of loss of earning capacity in the case of such is 60%. Under Memo No. C/10441/87 (NF) dated 17/12/1987, the Commissioner calculated the compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 24,904-12 ps. on the basis that he, was drawing a salary of Rs. 375. 00 per month as helper and that his age at the time of accident was 22 years and that 60% of earning capacity was lost, and directed the said amount to be deposited. The said amount was deposited by the appellant and it was withdrawn by the respondent. The counsel on both sides agree that the said Memo was issued on letter dated December 9, 1987 addressed by the appellant and as per the particulars furnished in the said letter that the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 375. 00 per month and that his age at the time of accident was 22 years and that 60% of his earning capacity was lost.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed his application for compensation under the Act before the Commissioner stating that the monthly wages that were being paid to him were Rs. 375. 00 per month although the minimum wage payable to him was fixed at Rs. 435. 00 per month and that he was claiming compensation on the basis of the minimum wages fixed at the relevant time i. e. , at Rs. 435. 00 per month. He stated in his application that he was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. He also claimed that he was entitled to 100% of loss of earning capacity and on that basis claimed Rs. 47,839-12 ps. as compensation. The said application of the respondent was numbered as W. C. Case No. 155 of 1988.

( 4 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the application of the respondent herein was not maintainable on the ground that already under the Memo dated 17/12/1987 the compensation payable to the respondent was fixed on the basis of his salary of Rs. 370. 00 per month and after assessing the loss of earning capacity as 60% and that the said order had become final and therefore the Commissioner could not rehear the matter. There was also the general statement that the appellant did not accept any of the allegations made in the application of the respondent herein and that lie was put to strict proof of the same.

( 5 ) AFTER evidence was adduced on both sides and after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the Commissioner held that the sum of Rs. 24,904-12 ps. was fixed earlier under his Memo dated 17/12/1987 basing on the particulars furnished by the appellant herein. Therefore, that order was not passed by him after regular enquiry on an application made by the workman i. e. , the respondent herein. He also pointed out that it was a Memo issued to the appellant herein without any verification of the wages paid to the workman and that therefore he had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent herein. He also observed that there was no dispute regarding the age and that the wage of Rs. 435. 00 claimed by the respondent was the minimum wage fixed for the category in which he was working but not Rs. 375. 00 pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document