Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anil B. Katti, J.
Lakshmamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sampige Khan Estate Tanigebylu Village & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5398 of 2017 (WC)
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Vinod Gowda, Advocate, M.R. Vanaja, Advocate, M.P. Srikanth, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the minimum wages notified by the Central Government should be considered while determining compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act.
Headnote:
Employees' Compensation Act - Minimum Wages - The court determined the compensation for the dependents of a deceased employee based on the minimum wages notified by the Central Government, as per the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court held that the minimum wages should be accepted as Rs.8,000/-, as per the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2010, and awarded compensation accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased employee died during the course of employment, and the dependents filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Trial Court awarded compensation based on the wages of the deceased, which the appellants argued was below the minimum wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wages of the deceased were below the minimum wages as notified by the Central Government, and therefore, modified the judgment to award higher compensation based on the minimum wages of Rs.8,000/-.
Issues: The issues raised were whether the wages of the deceased were below the minimum wages and what order should be passed regarding the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the minimum wages notified by the Central Government should be considered while determining compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, and awarded compensation based on the minimum wages of Rs.8,000/-.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court were modified to award the appellants total compensation of Rs.6,12,360/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid by the respondents.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Anil B. Katti, J. - Appellants challenging the judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge & Principal JMFC, Tarikere in ECA No.17/2014 dated 08.03.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of claimants/appellants can be stated in nutshell to the effect that appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the daughter of deceased Velliyan working as an employee under respondent No.1. On 01.06.2012, Velliyan was shade loping the tree, at that time accidentally fell down and sustained injuries, further succumbed to such injuries on the spot. The deceased Velliyan died during the course of employment under respondent No.1 and he was getting Rs.6,000/- per month as salary. The appellants being the dependents of deceased Velliyan filed claim petition seeking compensation.
4. In response to notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objections. Respondent No.1 has admitted that deceased was his employee and on 01.06.2012, during the course of employment met with accident and died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is further contended that all employees are insured with respondent No.2 and intimated the fact of accident to Insurance Company. Therefore, seeks to exonerate from the liability to pay any compensation to appellants.
5. Respondent No.2 admitted about issuance of policy in favour of respondent No.1 and the same was in force as on the date of incident, further deceased died during the course of employment with respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has no liability to pay interest for penalty according to terms of policy. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of petition.
6. The appellants relied on the evidence of PW.1 and documents at Exs.P.1 to P.7. Respondents have not lead in any evidence however on consent marked Exs.R.1 to R.3. The Trial Court on appreciating the evidence has partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,82,298/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.07.2012 till realization.
7. The deceased Velliyan died during the course of employment under respondent No.1 on 01.06.2012 is not at issue. The grievance of appellants is that the wages taken is below minimum wages and therefore Exs.R.1 to R.3 cannot be made as basis for considering the wages of Rs.141.85 per day.
8. The substantial questions of law raised by appellants are;
i) Whether the wages taken of deceased is below minimum wages?
ii) What order?
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. Indisputably, the deceased Velliyan died during the course of employment under respondent No.1 on 01.06.2012. Therefore, the present case is covered in terms of Section 4(1)A of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'Act'). The compensation has to be determined for an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor.
11. The Trial Court on the basis of Exs.R.1 to R.3 check roll of employees has determined the wages of deceased at Rs.141.85 per day. Respondent No.1 has paid Rs.15,000/-by cash and Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque in favour of appellant No.1 as advance compensation with regard to death of Velliyan during the course of employment. The grievance of learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2010, under SO 1258(E), the Central Government for the purpose of Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Act notifies the minimum wages as Rs.8,000/-. The said amount should have been taken as the minimum wage by the Trial Court while determining the compensation in terms of Section 4(1)A of the Act.
12. The date of incident in the present case is 01.06.2012 and the Gazette Notification referred above was already in force which came into effect on 31.05.2010. Therefore, in view of the said notification minimum wages should be accepted at Rs.8,000/-. The age of deceased is accepted as 50 years on the basis of PM report Ex.P.6 in the absence o
