1993 Supreme(Guj) 336

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
SAMUBEN - Appellant
Versus
PATEL INDUSTRIES - Respondent
C.A.1293 of 1985
Decided On : 09/02/1993

Headnote:Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 - Secs. 8(1) & 30 - Payment of compensation directly made to claimant - Validity - Held, such payment contrary to provision of Sec. 8 (1) and could not deemed to be any payment - Only exception could be with regard advance payment of less than Rs. 100/ - Finding of trial Court accepting direct payment of Rs. 14000 as compesnation not legal - Setaside.

       It becomes clear from a bare perusal of S. 8 (1) of the Act that no compensation has to be paid in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death except by deposit with the Commissioner and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation. This statutory provision prohibits an employer from making any payment of compensation in respect of the death of a workman directly to his heirs and legal representatives or to any of them. What the employer has to do is to deposit the amount of compensation with the Commissioner for the purpose. It has also been provided therein that any direct payment made contrary to the said statutory provision would not be deemed to be any payment.

       [Para 5]

       This statutory provision is quite clear on the point. It is designed to protect the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman against any kind of exploitation or fraud likely to be practised on them by or on behalf of the employer or any third party. It cannot be gainsaid that workmen in our country are by and large illiterate. Their heirs and legal representatives are all the more so. They might not be aware of the amount of compensation they would be entitled to on the death of the bread-winner in the family. At times an unscrupulous employer would like to exploit the situation by paying a meagre sum to any of the heirs of the deceased workman. An unscrupulous heir also might bargain with the employer and deprive the other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman of their due share in the compensation. In order to avoid any such kind of mischief making on the part of the employer or any of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased or any third party, the legislature in its wisdom has devised security of payment of compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman. The only exception to the statutory requirement is an advance payment of less than Rs.100. Such advance payment in the sum of less than Rs.100 can be paid by the employer to the heirs and legal representatives of the workman or to any of them. Subject to payment of this small advance money, the employer is not authorised or empowered or entitled to make payment of compensation for the death of a workman otherwise than in accordance with Sec. 8 of the Act.

       [Para 6]

       It is a settled principle of law that when a statute requires anything to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done only in that manner and in no other manner. Section 8 of the Act requires the employer to make payment of the compensation for the death of his workman by deposit of the amount thereof with the Commissioner. He has to make payment only in that manner. In order to make the position double sure, the legislature has made it clear that any payment of compensation for the death of a workman otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner would be deemed to be no payment. In that view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the Trial Forum regarding payment of Rs. 14,000/- to appellant No. 1 herein could not have been accepted as a valid payment.

       [Para 7]

       Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 - Sec. 4A (2) - Provisional payment - Admissibility - Employer has to accept the extent of liability for payment of compensation to workman himself in case of his being injured - Provision has no applicability where workman has breathed his last & claim is made by his heirs and legal representative - In the case alleged payment of Rs.14000 as compensation to heir after the death of workman could not attract the provision Sec. 4 A (2) of the Act.

       A bare perusal of the statutory provision under Section 4A (2) makes it clear that, in the first place, the employer has to accept the extent of his liability for payment of compensation and on that basis he has to make payment either to the workman or to deposit with the Commissioner. Again, the requirement of the aforesaid statutory provision is payment to the workman and not to any other person including his heirs and legal representatives. It appears that Sec. 4A (2) of the Act takes within its sweep the case where the workman has not breathed his last on account of the accident met with by him in the course of his employment. The workman defined in Sec. 2(1) (n) of the Act would obviously not include any of his heirs and legal representatives.

       [Para 9]

       In the present case the payment of Rs. 14,000/- alleged to have been made by the respondents for the death of the deceased was certainly not to the workman. Besides, as transpiring from the replies, the respondents did not accept any liability whatsoever for the death of the deceased. They went on to say that the deceased was never their workman. In that view of the matter, no resort can be permitted to be made to Sec. 4A (2) of the Act with respect to the so-called payment of Rs. 14,000/- to appellant No. 1 towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

       [Para 10]