Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
L. Tamilarasi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Management, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1027 of 2011
Decided On : 25-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Ajoy Khose, Advocate
For the Respondent:N. Nithiyanandam, Advocate
Headnote:
Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – Appellants were the claimants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Tenampet, Chennai -6 in W.C – Said claim petition was filed by the dependents of date Lakshminarayanamurthy, the deceased employee of the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation after his death – Deceased met with an accident and was in coma – He was initially hospitalised with the respondents hospital and later shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for, further treatment – Deceased however never recovered from coma and was therefore discharged from service – Based on the advice of the Medical Board held deceased was declared unfit and permanently disabled and was therefore liable to be discharged from service –Held, Now, it is common ground that the deduction in dispute in the present case is a "payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer by way of compensation during the period of disablement," and the answer to the question referred, in my opinion, depends upon whether the words in the proviso to s. 4(1) "to which the workman is entitled" apply to the words "any lump sum" or only to the words "half monthly payments – It appears to me that the words "any lump sum" and also the words "half monthly payments" are governed by the words "to which the workman is entitled – If the contention which the employer urges upon the Court were to be accepted the words "to which the workman is entitled" would be surplusage, and it would appear that these words were inserted in the proviso to s. 4(1) expressly to exclude any deduction, except in respect of funeral expenses, from the lump sum payable as compensation to the dependants – Such a lump sum is not a sum "to which the workman is entitled," but is payable to the dependants in respect of their separate and independent right to compensation – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Saravanan, J.
1. The appellants were the claimants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Tenampet, Chennai -6 in W.C. No. 284 of 2005. The said claim petition was filed by the dependents of date Lakshminarayanamurthy, the deceased employee of the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation after his death on 16.05.2002.
2. The deceased met with an accident on 20.09.1997 and was in coma. He was initially hospitalised with the respondent's hospital and later shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for, further treatment. The deceased however never recovered from coma and was therefore discharged from service on 13.01.2001.
3. Based on the advice of the Medical Board held during December, 2000 the deceased was declared unfit and permanently disabled and was therefore liable to be discharged from service. Therefore, the deceased was discharged from service on 13.01.2001.
4. During the course of treatment, respondent-employer took care of the hospitalisation expenses of the deceased employee. The claimants were also paid 50% of the monthly salary/wages that was payable to the deceased as he was hospitalised and until his discharge from service. The amounts paid during hospitalization until his discharge/retirement of service has been set off by the respondent against the compensation claimed by the claimants stating that this amount is more than the compensation that is payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
5. His discharge from service was challenged unsuccessfully by the appellants herein in W.P. No. 2112 of 2001 during his lifetime. Later, the deceased passed away on 16.05.2002. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as infructuous on 16.05.2002. Much, after the death of the deceased, the appellants had lodged the claim for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 07.01.2005 in W.C. No. 284 of 2005. The appellant stated that they were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,65,240/- under Section 4(1)(a) & (b) and interest under Section 4(A) 3 of the aforesaid Act.
6. According to the respondent, the dependents of the deceased Lakshminarayanamurthy who are the claimants/appellants herein were entitled to only compensation under Section 4(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act based on the maximum ceiling limit under the provisions of the said Act 1923 as it stood during the material time.
7. Applying the maximum ceiling fixed under Explanation-II of Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondent stated that during his life time the deceased was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,27,472/- (Rs. 2000 X 60/100 X 189.56) as employment injury and therefore the claimants cannot claim further amount as compensation under Section 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 after his death.
8. Therefore, after deducting/setting off the amount of Rs. 2,19,934/- towards 50% of the monthly salary/wages, the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 7,538/- on 26.02.2003 as the balance amount of compensation under the Act. It is further submitted that even otherwise, since the accident took place on 20.09.1997 long before the ceiling was increased to Rs. 4000 from Rs. 2000, the compensation that was payable under section 4(1)(a) was only Rs. 1,81,370/- and not Rs. 3,65,240/- as was claimed by the appellants/claimants.
9. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner of labour has accepted the contention of the respondent and thereby rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants.
10. In the present appeal the appellants have raised the following substantial questions of law:-
(i). When proviso (a) to Section 4(2) does not provide for adjustment of the half monthly payment with the lump sum compensation payable under Section 4(1) of the Act, whether the Commissioner for Workmen Commissioner is having power and jurisdiction to allow any adj
