ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court has made a reference of these appeals for consideration of a larger Bench vide its orders dated 23/08/2013 in M.F.A. No. 124 of 2011 and dated 10/09/2013 in M.F.A. No. 66 of 2013.

2. The Division Bench was considering a claim regarding compensation which has been determined under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In M.F.A. No. 124 of 2011, wages of the workman was Rs. 5,400/- per month. The issue before the Division Bench was as to whether while computing the monthly wages, the limit as prescribed in Explanation to Sections 4(1)(a) and (b) applies in case when compensation is determined with regard to clause (c). An earlier Division Bench judgment reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Abdul Razak, 2012 (1) KLT 818, was cited before the Division Bench wherein the Division Bench had taken a view that for determination of the amount of compensation under Section 4(1)(c), the Explanation II to Section 4(1)(a) and (b) shall not be applicable. In the present appeals, the Division Bench herein had expressed a doubt about the correctness of the judgment in United India Insurance (supra) and had made a reference for consideration by the Full Bench. The Division Bench expressed its views in paragraph 6 of the reference order that even though clause (c) is not expressly mentioned in Explanation II, since clause (c) contemplated compensation payable which, in turn, is to be determined with reference to compensation under Clause 4(1)(b), the legislature has left out reference to Clause (c) in Explanation II and hence Explanation II is applicable for determination of the amount of compensation under Section 4(1)(c). Paragraph 6 of the reference order is extracted below:-

"We are also of the view that we may not be justified in subscribing to the view expressed by the Division Bench. We are of the view that there is considerable substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that even though clause (c) is not expressly mentioned in Explanation II, in view of the fact that clause (c) contemplates compensation payable which in turn is to be determined with reference to compensation under clause 4(1)(b), the legislature has left out reference to clause (c) in Explanation II and any other interpretation is likely to result in an anomalous situation as for a person who suffered total disablement, the wages would be at the maximum of Rs. 4,000/- while if it is a case of permanent partial disablement the person would get compensation but with reference to higher monthly wages. This we would think is not the intention of the legislature. In said circumstances, as we are in disagreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench, we would think that the matter has to be decided by a Larger Bench."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both appeals have submitted that the view which has been expressed in the reference order is the correct view of law. It is submitted that Section 4(1)(b) provides for amount of compensation in case of permanent total disablement resulting from injury and clause (c) provides for permanent partial disablement from injury and under clause (c) some percentage of compensation is payable in the case of partial disablement as that of permanent total disablement as referred to in clause (b). Hence explanation has to be read into while making such computation. It is submitted that in the earlier Division Bench judgment in United India Insurance (supra) it has been submitted that clause (c) does not refer to Explanation II and Explanation II shall not be applicable in determining the compensation under clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 4. It is further submitted that the explanation cannot enlarge or restrict the substantive provision given in Section 4. Hence the explanation cannot be read in a manner to restrict the right given in the substantive provision. It is further submitted that ca