1. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai i.e 6th Labour Court. This being an appeal under Section 30 of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, (Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act 2009) (Hereinafter referred as “The Act”) Substantial questions of law are as under :-

Findings

(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding

compensation though case is not covered under Section 3 of the Act and

holding 100% disability ? No

(2) Whether the order of compensation of Rs.3,75,528/- is just and legal in

view of amendment of 2009 in section 4 of the Act ? No

(3) Whether the respondent/original applicant is entitled to claim

compensation as per the terms & conditions of NMB agreement under the No

Act?

2. Respondent is an original applicant. He was employed with the appellant/shipping company on the board, the vessel M.T Shannon on 3.3.1998. He joined and worked as a Petty Officer or Chief Cook on the contract basis as a contractual employment for a period of 9 months i.e till 5.12.1998. He was required to do number of physical activities related to cooking including the storage & shifting of the food items. In August-1998, deep freezer of meat & fish stopped functioning therefore, he was ordered by the Captain to shift the food items i.e meat and fish to veg-room and vice versa, though there was a helper and mess-man to help him, proper warm clothes were not provided to the applicant. Again on 12.9.1998 he was asked to shift fish and meat to vegetable cooler room. At that time, no assistance was given though asked for and the applicant shifted nearly 15 boxes weighing about 50 k.gs., so the muscles of the shoulder of the applicant were injured and he sustained acute back pain. He was given first aid. However, he was not in a position to carry out his duties. When vessel reached at Panama Port, the applicant wanted medical help. However, he was not sent to a Doctor on the Port and the vessel started its’s voyage from Panama Port to Boston Port. It reached Boston on 16.11.1998, till then applicant suffered permanent dis-ability, therefore he filled the form of request of medical attention. While on duty, he was sent to Doctor and was asked to disembark from the ship at Boston on 6.12.1998 and instructed to undergo all the medical tests after reaching India. Applicant went to Agrawal Nursing Home, Kurla on 7.12.1998 as he was suffering from severe chest and back pain and was admitted to the hospital on 8.12.1998 and was discharged on 16.12.1998. Thereafter he went to his native place at Goa and took medical treatment at Salgaonkar Research Centre. He approached the appellants and reported about his health problem. However, he did not get positive response. He took treatment. He had received nonscheduled injury which was assessed as 100% dis-ability. He therefore, filed claim application under the Workmen Compensation Act for compensation of Rs.1,87,764/- from the appellants. Both the parties adduced evidence. The Additional Commissioner after considering oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim of the applicant and the Tribunal taking into account the amendment of 2000 in The Workmen's Compensation Act, awarded the compensation @ Rs.3,75,528/- though the claim was made for Rs.1,87,764/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the employer filed this appeal and the applicant filed cross-objection praying for enhancement of the compensation.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that he challenges the order of the Tribunal on two grounds; one that the claim application is not maintainable as it does not fulfill the requirements of Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act & secondly, the amount of the compensation granted by the Additional Commissioner is not as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and not justifiable. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent/original claimant joined the servic