The Court emphasized the need to calculate 'just compensation' in commensuration with the actual income or minimum wages, ensuring fairness for the workmen.

JUDGMENT :

1. The award dated 28.09.2017 passed in W.C.No.85 of 2014 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The question of law raised by the appellant reads as under:

(a) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the Appellant was the employee of the 2nd opposite party when the applicant had come to the 2nd opposite party show room for installation and removal of the serial sets provided by the 1st opposite party is not perverse?

(b) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the Applicant is the employee of the 2nd opposite party/appellant in the absence of evidence that the applicant's service was temporarily lent or let on hire by the 1st opposite party to the appellant/2nd opposite party is correct?

(c)whether the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant is the employee of the 2nd Opposite party in the total absence of evidence that the applicant was controlled by the appellant/2nd opposite party at the time of accident is sustainable in law or in fact?

(d) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant is the employee of the 2nd opposite party in the absence of evidence that the applicant was directed to execute the work of installation and removal of serial sets at the time of accident is tenable in law?

(e) whether the Commissioner that has not erred in law in interpretation of the order which was given by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party resulting in appellant being wrongly held liable?

3. Though the questions of law are relatable to the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a question that the Doctor, who assessed the workman, has not given any certificate regarding the loss of earning capacity. As per Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, the Doctor has to assess the loss of earning capacity of the workman which is not done in this case. Therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is improper and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that the Doctor himself assessed the nature of injury as partially permanent. Thus, the injuries sustained are not actually permanent and therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is excessive.

4. The first respondent/victim filed an application under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act claiming compensation on the ground that he was working as an electrician under the second respondent and on 17.01.2011 at about 19.00 hours, at the instruction of his owner Mr.Ramasubbu, he was working in the premises of Vivek and Co., in order to attend electrical fault in the lighting arrangements. The first respondent was not provided with any safety instruments and equipments and he was directed to attend the fault in the Electrical decoration and as per his instruction, he was attending the fault by sitting in the parapert wall of the open terrace. At that time, the first respondent lost his balance and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent/victim has stated that he had spent above Rs.4,00,000/- towards his medical expenses and the owner has also given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet out the immediate medical expenses. Even thereafter, he continued his treatment as he sustained grievous injuries.

5. The issues were adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour with reference to the documents and evidence produced by the respective parties. The factum regarding the accident was established and the accident occurred during the course of employment. When the first respondent/victim was attending electrical fault by sitting on the parapert wall of the open terrace, he fell down suddenly and sustained grievous injuries during the course of employment. The second respondent seems to be the Contractor and the appellant is the Principal employer. The works were carried out in the premises of the appellant namely Vivek and Co. In view of the fact