The insurer is liable for compensation based on revised minimum wage rates for the injured worker, emphasizing the beneficent purpose of compensation legislation.

JUDGMENT :

B.P.Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr.Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant & Mr.Behera, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.

2. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against judgment dated 9^th December 2015 of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul in E.C. Case No.07 of 2013, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6,62,521/- has been granted along with interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of injury sustained by the Claimant in the accident dated 20^th August, 2012 during course of his employment under Respondent No.2.

3. The main contention advanced by Mr.Mahali on behalf of the Appellant is that the policy taken by the employer in respect of the workman is restricted up to the wage of Rs.106/- per day and the Commissioner while computing loss of income has assessed the wage at Rs.170/- per day. According to Mr. Mahali, the extra amount is not liable to be indemnified by the Insurer since the contract was for wage @ Rs.106/- per day.

4. Undisputedly, the policy is in respect of the workman where the rate of wage is limited to Rs.106/- per day. According to the prevalent rate of minimum wages prescribed in notification No. 6272 dated 13^th September 2009 of Government of Odisha and valid till 30^th September 2012, the rate of minimum wages were Rs.90/- per day for unskilled labourer, Rs.103/- for semi-skilled labourer, Rs.116/- for skilled labourer and Rs.129/- for highly skilled labourer. Said rate of minimum wages was revised with effect from 1^st October 2012 by Government of Odisha in Labour and ESI Department vide notification No.1942 dated 6^th October 2012 enhancing the wage rate to Rs.150/- per day for un- skilled labourer, Rs.170/- for semi-skilled labourer, Rs.190/- for skilled labourer and Rs.205/- for highly skilled labourer.

5. The accident is dated 20^th August, 2012. It happened while the injured workman was working as a gas cutter under Respondent No.2 in his Boiler unit. Learned Commissioner treated him as a semi-skilled labourer and thus assessed his income at Rs.5,100/- per month @ Rs.170/- per day. Here the employer Respondent No.2 does not dispute the income of the injured Claimant and the wage rate of Rs.170/- per day (Rs.5,100/- per month). The Appellant-Insurer also does not deny the same though it is contended that the wage rate paid to the workman should not exceed Rs.106/- as per the contract. Since the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Labour and ESI Department was revised shortly after the date of accident i.e. from 1^st October, 2012 enhancing the same from Rs.103/- to Rs.170/- per day, the application of wage rate by the Commissioner is found appropriate. The monthly remuneration of Rs.5,100/- of the injured workman as calculated by learned Commissioner is found justified since the wage rate to be calculated for the purpose of insurance contract cannot violate the minimum wage rate prescribed the Government in terms the Minimum Wages Act. In the case at hand though it cannot be said as in violation strictly, but keeping in view the short gap between the date of accident and date of revision of minimum wage, the approach of the Commissioner cannot be termed as unjustified. Moreover, payment of such rate to the injured workman remains undisputed by the employer as well as the insurer. Further, keeping the beneficent intention of the legislation (E.C. Act, 1923) and the special facts of the case in view, it would be unjust to burden the employer for such higher wage paid to the workman. The quantification of loss of income as determined by the Commissioner is thus confirmed.

6. The further contention that the injured Claimant did not sus