Ratio
Under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 the liability of an employer to pay compensation would be discharged only if the payment is deposited with the Commissioner and any payment voluntarily made by an employer outside could not be adjusted against the compensation determined under the Act.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 21.4.2009 made in WC.No.105/2005 by the learned Labour Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore, whereby a sum of Rs.4,29,547/-as total compensation was awarded to the claimant/the 1st Respondent herein for the death of her husband Balakrishnan on 01.06.2005.

2. The facts are that the deceased was working under the Appellant Timber Depot as a wood cutter for the past seven years and his last drawn pay was Rs.175/- per day. He was working in the premises of the Appellant Timber Depot. On 1.6.2005 at about 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m., when he switched on the electric board in order to start his work, he was electrocuted and sustained serious injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Abirami Hospital and then, to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where he was reported dead. The wife of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.5,20,584/- before the Labour Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore.

3. The claim was resisted by the Appellant, stating that the claimant suppressed material and relevant facts. According to the Appellant Management, he was not a worker with the Appellant Timber Depot, but on humanitarian grounds, he was offered food and clothes by the Management of the Appellant Timber Depot. The deceased visited the Depot on 1.6.2005 and voluntarily laid his fingers on the switch board, which resulted in electrocution. It is further stated that at the instance of the Police, the Management was forced to give ex-gratia payment of Rs.42,000/- as compensation to the claimant.

4. Before the Labour Commissioner, in the course of enquiry, the Appellant produced agreements Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 said to have been entered into between the claimant and the management to show that the claimant and her mother-in-law have received a sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation from the Management and have executed the agreements, acknowledging the receipt of the said amount.

5. Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Labour Commissioner ought to have deducted the amount received by the claimant and her mother-in-law as compensation from the Management immediately after the accident and determination of compensation without deducting those amount is not proper and Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is only directory and not mandatory.

6. On the other hand, Mr.L.Mouli, the learned counsel for the Respondent /claimant drawing attention of this court to Section 8(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, contended that there is a total bar under Section 8 against any deduction to be made by the employer or by the court for any payment made by the employer out of the court under any circumstances, so as to reduce the corpus of the compensation determined by the Labour Commissioner . The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1989-LLN-497 (The Divisional Engineer, MPEB Vs. Mantobai) and also the unreported judgement of this court made in CMA.No.1439/2009 dated 4.8.2011.

7. The question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the sum said to have been received by the Respondent claimant can be deducted from the sum of compensation awarded by the Labour Commissioner .

8. Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as follows:-

"8. Distribution of compensation:-(1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation:

Provided that in the case of the deceased workman, an employer may make to any dependent advances on account of compensation not exceeding an aggregate of one hundred rupees and so much of such aggregate as does n