JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, against the Award dated 02.08.2017 and made in W.C.No.29/2014 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai -6 and the award copy was received on 28.06.2018.)

1. The Award dated 02.08.2017 passed in W.C.No.29/2014 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The claimant is the appellant and the Claim Petition is filed under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that on 14.04.2013 at about 06.15 hrs, when the claimant was employed as a Driver in Auto bearing Registration No.TN-07-S-5605 belonged to the 1st respondent, he met with an accident in Purasawakkam High Road junction of millers road and sustained grievous injuries. He sustained crush injuries in both legs, multiple grievous burning injuries all over the body. The claimant took treatment and filed an application, seeking compensation.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties to the petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- fixed is not in accordance with the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. As per the State Government, the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.2D.No.3 dated 27.01.2014, the Minimum Wages fixed is a sum of Rs.10,127/-. It is contended that Minimum Wages fixed by the State Government is to be adopted as the Central Government has not revised the Minimum Wages for a longer period. Therefore, the compensation awarded cannot be construed as 'just compensation'. The principles to be adopted is to grant 'just compensation' to the victims. How to asses the compensation as just, the Courts are held that the compensation awarded must be in commensuration with the price index and prevailing situation in the society. Impracticable calculation is impermissible. Therefore, the nature of the Act being verified by the workman with reference to the salary prevailing in the society are to be considered for the purpose of fixing the compensation.

5. In the present case, the Courts are bound by the provisions of the Act. Under the Act, the Central Government notified a sum of Rs.8,000/- as monthly income in the year 2010. However, the State Government revised the minimum wages of a workman under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and enhanced the sum as Rs.10,127/-. Thus, the beneficial enhancement is to be granted to the workman as the statute is a welfare legislation.

6. It is for the Courts to ascertain, which one is beneficial to the workman and it would suit the prevailing situation in the society. When these facts are taken into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the Minimum Wages fixed by the State Government in the year 2014 is to be adopted as the minimum wages notified by the Central Government was in the year 2010 and thereafter, it was not enhanced. Practicable and pragmatic approach is required in adopting the minimum wages for the benefit of the workman under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, which is a welfare legislation. Thus, this Court is inclined to adopt the State Government fixation of Minimum Wages in G.O.Ms.2D.No.3, which stipulates a sum of Rs.10,127/- and the accident in the present case falls within the ambit of the Government order issued by the State Government.

7. This Court adjudicated the same issue raised in the present appeal in yet another case decided on 27.01.2021 in C.M.A.No.897 of 2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“18. Adopting the conventional procedures, the minimum wages are fixed by the State and Union for the purpose of fixing the monthly income. Undoubtedly prior to 18.01.2010, the date on which the amendment was issued, the deeming cap was in force and as per the deeming c