Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Prakash Chandra, J.
General Manager N F Railway, Maligaon, Gowahati (Assam) – Appellant
Vs.
Divisional Railway Manager, N F Railway, Katihar – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 224 of 2016
Decided On : 18-08-2018
Anil Singh, Adv., Amrit Anurag, Adv., Prabhakar Sen, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 4(a)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000 in calculating compensation for work-related injuries.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Labour Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act-1923 - Section 4(a)(b) of Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000 - Summary: The court allowed the delay condonation application and modified the compensation amount based on the interpretation of Section 4(a)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act-1923 for a work-related injury resulting in permanent disablement. The Labour court awarded compensation, which was challenged in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the calculation of compensation by the Labour court did not consider the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000, leading to a substantial question of law. The court modified the compensation amount based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
Issues: The issues included the calculation of compensation based on the gross salary, interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000, and the extent of permanent disablement suffered by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 4(a)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000, which deemed the monthly wages for compensation calculation purposes to be Rs. 4000/- only if the workman's monthly wages exceeded that amount.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation amount and directed the appellants to make the payment along with interest to the respondent within a specified timeframe.
Prakash Chandra, J.
Ref: I.A. no. 2668 of 2016
The aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of about five months 28 days in preferring this appeal with the case that after passing order and award by the learned Labour court, considerable time was taken in taking decision by several superior offices of the appellants for preferring this appeal and in completing the formalities required for filing the appeal and after completing the aforesaid formalities, this appeal has been preferred and there is no deliberate and intentional laches on the part of the appellants in preferring this appeal in time. Respondent filed no rejoinder against the aforesaid interlocutory application.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find sufficient grounds in the said application for condoning the delay. Hence, the aforesaid delay made in preferring this appeal is condoned and said interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed.
M.A. no. 224 of 2016
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent on this Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order and award dated 08.07.2015 passed by P.O. Labour Court, Purnea in W.C. Case no. 01 of 2014 whereby the learned labour court allowing the claim petition filed by the applicant, directed the opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,16,083/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment to the applicant.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that W.C. Case no. 01 of 2014 was filed by the applicant-respondent Moti Lal Karan under W.C. Act-1923 for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of permanent disablement sustained by him during discharge of his duty with the case in succinct that the applicant was employed as points man under S.M.G. Katihar having gross salary of Rs. 10,009/-. On 30.05.2007, while he was connecting rail engine with bogies, his left thumb was badly injured. He was brought to the Railway Hospital, Katihar to accord him medical aid, where he remained under treatment from 30.05.2007 to 20.07.2007 and due to said accident, the applicant became completely unfit to discharge his duty as points man. The Medical Board has found the loss of earning capacity of the applicant to the extent of 65% due to said physical incapacity. The applicant was placed as a dresser in the Medical Department in the same payscale. He had lodged a claim before D.R.M(P) Katihar, who repudiated his claim. Hence, he filed the aforesaid case. It has further been submitted that due to aforesaid accident, the applicant has suffered great physical, financial and mental loss.
4. Both the opposite parties put their appearance in the case and filed their written statement. Both parties have adduced evidence in buttress of their respective cases.
5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, learned Labour court passed the aforesaid order and award as detailed in the earlier paragraph.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order and award, the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Labour court has wrongly calculated quantum of compensation on the basis of gross-salary of the applicant-respondent. As the accident is of 30.05.2007, the said accident is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act-2000 and as per the provision of Explanation-II of Section 4(a)(b) of the aforesaid amended Act, where the monthly wages of a workman exceed, four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) of Section 4(1) shall be deemed to be Rs. 4000/- only and the case of respondent is covered under clause (b) which is meant for the compensation where permanent total disablement results from the injury. It is further submitted that the injury sustained by the respondent-applic
