Ratios:
a. If the words used in the beneficial Labour legislation are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act.
b. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 interest to be paid on the compensation fixed by the Commissioner for workmen’s compensation would accrue immediately after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the accident and not from the date of its quantification/ orders passed by the Commissioner.

M.Sathyanarayanan, J:-Heard the submissions of Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the Claimants and Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, Mr.S.Arunkumar, Mr.S.Manohar, Mr.S.Ramalingam, Mr.R.Sivakumar, Mr.S.Vadivel, Mr.C.Paranthaman, and Mr.T. Padmanabhan for the Insurance Companies.

2. In a case reported in 2007 (3) CTC 378 Velu Ammal and others Vs. Sri Krishna Agencies and another, a learned Judge of this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in 2007 ACJ 845 : 2007 (1) TN MAC page 214 National Insurance Co. Ltd., -v- Mubasir Ahmed and another, has held that the payment of compensation payable under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 will become due on the date of adjudication of the claim and not on the date of the accident.

3. In a case reported in 2007(5) MLJ page 999 H.Dawood and another v- L.Thangarajan and others, the learned Judge by placing reliance upon the above cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that the appellants therein are not entitled to get interest from the date of claim petition and they are entitled to get interest only after 30 days from the date of determination of the compensation amount.

4. In 2007 (5) MLJ page 1059 : 2007(2) TN MAC page 98 Marimuthammal @ Marimuthu and another v- R.P.P. Construction (P) Ltd., Chennai and others, the learned Judge of this Court has placed reliance upon the Larger Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 1976 (1) MLJ, page 235 (SC) Pratap Narain Singh v- Srinivas Sabata and the judgment rendered by the three Member Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2000 ACJ page 5 (SC) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., held that as per Section 4-A(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the compensation becomes due on the date of the accident and consequently interest is payable from that date.

5. A learned Judge of this Court while hearing the matter in C.M.A.No.940 of 2002, has noted the above said conflicting decisions, and hence, directed the Registry to post this batch of cases before a larger Bench of this Court for adjudication as to the starting point of payment of interest payable by the employer to the claimants. Under the said circumstances, these C.M.As. are posted before us for answering the above said reference.

6. In a decision reported in 1976 (1) SCC page 289 - Pratap Narain Singh v- Srinivas Sabata and another (four Judges), one of the points urged was that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation committed a serious error of law in imposing penalty on the appellants under Section 4-A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act as the compensation had not fallen due until it was settled by the Commissioner under Section 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has answered the said issue as follows:-

“Section 3 of the Act deals with the employers liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioners order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employers liability to pay compensatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document