Back
1965 Supreme(Bom) 85
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.V.Patel and B.D.Bal, JJ.
Appellants: Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Ashru Jaiwant Tribhuvan
.F.O.D. No. 297 of 1964 with First Appeal No. 298 of 1964 Decided On: 16.06.1965
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.A. Pandhya, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: D.S. Nargolkar, Adv.
Bonus is included in wages for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act.
Headnote:
WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION ACT - WAGES - SECTION 2(M) - BONUS INCLUDED IN WAGES FOR CALCULATING COMPENSATION - DISABILITY ASSESSMENT - COMMISSIONERS' DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
Two employees suffered injuries during their employment at a sugar mill. The Commissioner awarded compensation based on their wages, including bonus. The employer appealed, arguing that bonus should not be included in wages and that the disability assessment was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that bonus is a benefit capable of being estimated in money and is therefore included in wages for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act. The court also held that the Commissioner has the discretion to assess the extent of disability based on the nature of the injury, the nature of the work performed before and after the injury, and other relevant factors.
Issues: 1. Whether bonus should be included in wages for calculating compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act. 2. Whether the Commissioner erred in assessing the extent of disability.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "wages" in Section 2(m) of the Workman's Compensation Act includes any privilege or benefit capable of being estimated in money. Bonus is a cash payment made in addition to wages and is a benefit to which the workman is entitled as a matter of right. Therefore, bonus is included in wages for the purpose of calculating compensation. 2. The Commissioner has the discretion to assess the extent of disability based on the nature of the injury, the nature of the work performed before and after the injury, and other relevant factors. The court will not interfere with the Commissioner's assessment unless it is unreasonable or perverse.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
1. These are two appeals under the Workmans compensation Act by the employees.
[2] The point involved in of some importances, and that is why these matters were referred to a Bench. The facts in the first Appeal No, 297 of 1964 are that the respondents Ashru was employed by the Appellants Sugar Mills as a labourer. An accident occurred on 25th September 1962 in the course of the Respondents employment. As a result of this accident, the Respondents suffered a simple fracture of the right and left calcaneum bones of the feet. This injury and even after recovery, made him practically unfit to do the work which he was accustomed to do. He, therefore made an application for compensation under the Workmans compensation act in respect of this injury. The civil surgeon who examined him on the 8th May 1963 issued a certificate where he has described the injuries as simple fractures of right and left calcaneum, and Doctor gave evidence to suggest that the disability was a permanent partial disability only to the extent of 10 per cent. The learned commissioners held that the disability was 90 per cent and awarded compensation on that basis.
[3] The facts in First Appeal No. 298 of 1964 are that the respondents, Sonawane, was employed by the Mills, also as labourer. The accident occurred on 5th November 1962. He suffered injuries in the course of the employment as a result of which both the middle and index as fingers of his left hand are rendered useless even though some stubs are left. The percentage of the disablement of is 18. The learned commissioners ordered compensation accordingly.
[4] In Both these case, in calculating the quantum of compensation, the learned commissioner which included in the wages of the workman the bonus which was earned in the prior year and bonus which was calculated the compensation in accordances with the figures arrived at by inclusion of he same. In the first case on this basis the learned commissioners awarded a sum of the Rs. 2, 585/- and in the second case he awarded a sum of Rs. 641.
[5] The first contention that is raised by Mr. Pandya is that the learned commissioners was in error when he included bonus in the wages while calculating the amount of the compensation to be paid to the workman. He relied upon sheodutt singh v. Alli Mohommed [1959] 63 Cal. WN 207 in support of his contention. In this case the learned Judges held that as bonus is not deferred wages and the is a cash payment if the addition to wages as ruled by out supreme court it is not a part of the wage at all. He referred to the observation of the supreme court in Muir Mills Co Ltd v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur AIR 1955 SC 170 and shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. Their Workman AIR 1958 SC 153 to which we will presently refer. It is sufficient at this stage of say that in these two cases of the claim for bonus was made under the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947 which by its very definition in S. 2 excludes bonus from the definition of wages.
[6] The question as to whether bonus should be included in the wages for this purpose depends essentially upon the definitions given in the workmans compensation act itself. Section 4 provides the manner of the determining compensation payable to workman in the stated cases. Clause [a] deals with compensation payable in case of death and is fixed on the basis of monthly wages earned by workman. Clauses [b] relates to permanent total disablement by reason of the injury and this also is based on the money wages and it to do determined in accordance with the schedule given in the act. Clauses [c] deal with permanent partial disablement and prescribes as certain percentages in cases schedule as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by the disablement. The second part of that clauses relates to injuries not specified in the schedule I and again refers to the loss of earning capacity permanently causes by the injury. It is not doubt true that monthly wages have been r
