The main legal point established in the judgment is that the calculation of compensation amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be based on the provision existing at the time of the incident, and the court emphasized the importance of following the correct provision of law and welfare legislation in favor of the claimants.

By the Court.–The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 25.6.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in connection with W.C. Case No. 3 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 3,95,850/- to the claimant / respondent.

2. The brief facts behind the order is that one Ganauri Yadav was a permanent employee of M/s. BCCL and he was working at Basudeopur colliery under Sijua Area No. V as Surface Trammer. On 13.5.2000 at about 8.20 p.m. while he was on duty he was assaulted by some miscreants and sustained injuries, as a result he died on 28.6.2000. The matter was reported to Loyabad Police Station vide letter No. 139 dated 14.5.2000 and accordingly F.I.R. was registered. Since Ganauri Yadav died in course of his duty at his work place, the claimant, namely, Dhaneshwari Devi, wife of late Ganauri Yadav filed a petition for compensation and it was registered as W.C. Case No.3 of 2004. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dharibad, after recording evidence and giving opportunities to the parties of hearing passed the impugned order and an Award of Rs. 3,95,850/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground i.e. Issue No. 3 which has been decided in Para-II of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has submitted and drawn my attention towards Section 4(1) (a) and Explanation 2 under which the calculation was mane. It is submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has calculated the compensation amount in view of the amendment which has been given effect from 8.12.2000 where as occurrence admitted to have taken place on 13.5.2000 i.e. prior to the amendment in the said provision. As per the existing provision, then the calculation should have been made as 50% X 2000 X 131.95 = Rs. 1,39,850/-.

4. It is further pointed out that the original claim of the claimant was also under the same calculation, but the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad has wrongly calculated the amount under the amended provision and therefore, the aforesaid finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the amount payable to the claimant shall be calculated in view of the existing provision as contained under Section 4 at the relevant point of time. In this context learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 3502, Kerala State Electricity Board & another v. Walsala Kr. & another. In paragraph-5 their lordships have held as follows :–

"5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, ( 1998) 1 KLT 951 wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v, Srinivas Sabata and Anr., (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it."

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and drawn my attention towards the judgment reported in 1997 (2) LLJ 546 and submitted that the provision which was prevailing on the date of adjudication is to be followed and the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has rightly considered the prevailing provision as contained under Section 4 with the amendment which was given effect from 8.12.2000. It is further argue