IMPORTANT POINT
The Employee’s Compensation Act allows for compensation based on actual wages proven by the employee or their legal heirs, overriding the Central Government's notification of a fixed wage cap when evidence of higher wages exists.

JUDGMENT :

M. Dhandapani, J.

The appeals, which were listed on different dates, were heard, separately, but as the issue involved in all the appeals being common, relating to the fixation of wages for the purpose of computation of compensation payable to the workmen under the Employee’s Compensation Act, they are being dealt with by this common judgment.

2. While CMA No.3087/2021 has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased/employee by filing petition before the competent authority under the Employee’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation, wherein the authority had fixed the monthly wages of the workmen on the basis of the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 (1-B) of the Act and fixed the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/- and assailing such fixation as bad by contending that the monthly wages of the employee was higher than the one fixed, and had sought for enhancement, CMA No.735/2020 has been filed by the appellant/employer assailing the order of the authority that inspite of payment of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) by the employer, the authority had quantified a sum of Rs.6,82,760/- as the compensation payable by erroneously interpreting Section 8 of the Act, while CMA No.3087/2021 is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased/employee claiming higher compensation by contending that the monthly wages fixed at Rs.8,000/- by the authority by following Section 4 (1-B) of the Act is erroneous as in the case of establishment of monthly wages through evidence, the notification of the Central Government fixing the wages at Rs.8,000/- cannot be adopted.

3. CMA Nos.662, 666, 675 and 721 of 2021 have been filed by the injured employee assailing the fixation of monthly wages at Rs.8,000/- by the authority u/s 4 (1-B) of the Act, inspite of the workmen drawing higher monthly wages and, therefore, seeks appropriate enhancement of monthly wages and consequential increase in compensation.

4. CMA No.1583 of 2020 has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased employee claiming higher compensation, assailing that the fixation of monthly wages at Rs.8,000/- by the authority u/s 4 (1-B) of the Act, inspite of higher wages drawn, is erroneous and seeks appropriate enhancement of monthly wages and also payment of penalty u/s 4-A (3) of the Act for delayed payment of the compensation.

5. As all the appeals revolve around the fixation of monthly wages by the authority at Rs.8,000/-, as notified by the Central Government in view of Section 4 (1-B) of the Act, inspite of the fact that the respective workmen were alleged to have been drawing higher wages that what has been notified and, therefore, entitled for higher compensation in terms of Section 4 (1)(a) of the Act, the present appeals have been filed.

6. The main ground canvassed to sustain the fixation of Rs.8,000/- towards monthly wages is premised on Section 4 (1-B) of the Act, which prescribes that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1) such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. It is therefore the submission that once the notification has been issued by the Central Government fixing monthly wages, irrespective of the wages drawn by the workmen, who claims compensation, the authority is only bound to fix Rs.8,000/- as the monthly wages and the actual wages, which is alleged to have been received by the workmen would not be the basis to determine the compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the authority fixing the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/- is very much in order and does not require any interference.

7. Contrarily, on the side of the workmen, the main contention advanced is that the fixation of monthly wages by the Central Government as provided under Section 4 (1-B) should be adopted only where the workman is not able to prove the receipt of monthly wages through documentary evidence, as the