JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. Successive Governments have failed; the so-called champions of labourers have also failed. But this court cannot fail to protect the interest of 40 crore workers. The failure is with regard to revision/enhancement of maximum wages of Rs. 8,000 fixed in the year 2010 under section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act. Non-revision of minimum wages, even after 8 years, affects more than 40 crore employees of this country, due to the increase in prices. Instead of concentrating on major issues like revision of monthly wages, it is being said that the so-called champions of workmen are concentrating on petty issues and indulging in militant trade unionism affecting the industrial growth of our nation.

2. International Labour Organisation, in its report dated 20.8.2018, 'India wage report: wage policies for decent work and inclusive growth', states that India's economy in the past two decades has seen an average GDP rate of 7 per cent. National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) estimate indicates that daily average wage has doubled between the period 1993-94 and 2011-12. Wages have seen a faster growth for the most vulnerable categories including workers in rural areas, informal employment, casual workers, female workers and low-paid occupations. ILO report also highlights the need for sustainable wage policies that would promote inclusive growth in the country. Based on NSSO 2011-12 data, ILO estimates that of the total 402 million workers, 51.4 per cent (206 million) were self-employed and 46.6 per cent (195 million) were wage employees including regular/salaried employees (74 million) and casual workers (121 million). The report also recommends to improve the current minimum wages system based on ILO standards. ILO also recommends strong wage policies which are key to promote inclusive growth in India.

3. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the award dated 26.7.2016 made in WC No. 343 of 2015 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai.

4. The case of the appellants is that the deceased Vignesh alias Vigneswaran, who was the son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, was working as welder under the respondent No. 1 met with an accident. On 8.8.2015, when the deceased was pulling iron angles, he slipped and fell down from the 7th floor of respondent No. 1's building and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Chettinad Hospital, Chennai and given treatment, however, he succumbed to injuries. Hence, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased workman, the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed petition before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai claiming compensation.

5. The Employee's Compensation Commissioner, taking into consideration the materials on record, including evidence of Saraswathi, PW 1, which was in consonance with the statements found in Exh. P1-F.I.R., found that the deceased Vignesh alias Vigneswaran died while working as a welder under the respondent No. 1 on 8.8.2015. Considering Exh. P2, insurance policy No. 5004/89197869/00/000, issued by the respondent No. 2-insurer, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner held that there was an existing policy between the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2. Even though the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were served, they never appeared before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. However, in the absence of any contra or rebuttal evidence, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner was constrained to pass an award, based on the available sufficient positive evidence and records, determined the compensation at Rs. 8,95,840 and directed the respondents to pay the award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the award failing which to pay the award amount along with 12 per cent interest from 31st day of the accident till the payment. Though the Employee's Compensation Commissi