Amendments to a substantive law, such as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are generally presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature expressly or impliedly provides for retrospective application.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , is directed against a judgment and award dated 27. 2. 98 passed by the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, calcutta in Claim Case No. 425 of 1994 whereby he has passed an award of rs. 1,60,178 in favour of the respondent no. 1 and against the appellant along with additional interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment and costs. The claim petition filed by respondent no. 1 before the Commissioner related to the compensation claim lodged by respondent No. 1 in respect of the death of her son Samar Bhowmick who was driving lorry No. WMK 8766 and who died in a road accident involving the said lorry on 7. 4. 1994. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. The commissioner held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month as his wages.

( 2 ) IN this appeal only one point has been urged by the appellant. The point relates to the extent of the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner. Undoubtedly the accident had occurred on 7. 4. 1994, when the son of respondent No. 1 died. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act' for short) was amended by workmen's Compensation (Amendment)act, 1995 (Act No. 30 of 1995) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'amending Act' ). Whereas in section 4, in case of death resulting from injury, it was provided in the Act prior to its amendment in 1995 that the amount of compensation shall be an amount equal to 40 per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman, multiplied by the relevant factor, or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more. By the amendment this was modified to raise the compensation amount to an amount equal to 50 per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman, multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs. 50,000, whichever is more. The Commissioner in the judgment and award impugned in this appeal awarded the compensation in respect of the aforesaid claim on the basis of the aforesaid amended section 4 of the Act despite the fact that the death had occurred on 7. 4. 94 whereas the amendment to section 4 of the act was brought about with effect from 15. 9. 1995 in terms of section 1 (2) of the amending Act read with Central Government notification of 12. 9. 1995 issued under this section which fixed 15. 9. 1995 as the date on which the aforesaid amendment to section 4 and other sections of the act would come into force.

( 3 ) THE only point for consideration thus in this appeal is whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding higher compensation on the basis of the amended section 4 of the Act, despite the death having occurred on 7. 4. 1994. The Commissioner supported his decision of awarding higher compensation based on amended section 4 of the Act, upon a Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Majeed, 1997 ACJ 264 (Kerala) and a judgment of the Apex Court delivered by a two-Judge division Bench in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal nos, 16904-16909 of 1996; decided on 6. 11. 1996.

( 4 ) THE Amending Act, apart from amending section 4 (1) (a) of the Act also brought about various other changes to different provisions of the Act. For example, section 4 (1) (b) was also amended to raise the compensation amount in case of permanent total disablement being equal to 60 per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, instead of the original 50 per cent or an amount of Rs. 60,000 instead of rs. 24,000 as originally stood. Whereas in explanation II to section 4 as it originally stood, it was provided that the monthly wages of a workman for the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of section 4 would be deemed to be only Rs. 1,000, even if these actually exceed Rs. 1,000. By the Amending act this figure has been raised from rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000.

( 5 ) IN order to determine the extent o