The court clarified the conditions for calculating compensation under Sec. 5(a) and Sec. 5(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and emphasized the importance of continuous service in determining the applicable provision.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. The appellant claimant has assailed the award given by Mr. Darshan Singh, Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Amritsar, whereby his laim petition has been dismissed on the ground that an amount of Rs.27,356/- has already been paid to him by the respondents.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant Baldev Singh was employed, as daily wage worker with the respondents and was working at Electricity Office Gowal Mandi, Amritsar. On September 19, 1992, during the course of employment, he met with an accident and was seriously burnt by electric flash. He suffered permanent loss of function of his right hand. Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, assessed loss of claimants earning capacity of working upto 50 per cent due to this accident. He was drawing Rs.1150.00 per month and was aged 25 years at the time of this accident. He claimed Rs.62,361.62 paise along with interest under Sec.4-A (3) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the Act)-

3. The respondents admitted the accident, the employment of the claimant as well as his average wage paid to him. It was also admitted that Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, has assessed the loss of claimants earning capacity of working upto 50 per cent due to this accident. They calculated the amount of compensation under Sec.5 (a) of the Act and paid Rs.27,356/- to the claimant-appellant by depositing this amount on April 28, 1994.

4. Learned Commissioner framed issues. Parties adduced their evidence. Service record, pay record etc. were produced by the respondents.

5. The learned Commissioner held that the claimants case fell under Sec.5 (a) of the Act and not under Sec.5 (c) of the Act. He also held that the claimant has failed to prove the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, on record. He further held that the alleged loss of function of right hand is also not covered under Schedule-I. Since the aforementioned amount of compensation was already paid by the respondents to the claimant, his claim petition was dismissed.

6. The appellant-claimants learned counsel contended that under Sec.5 (a) of the Act the wages can be calculated if the workman has, during a continuous period of not less than twelve months immediately preceding the accident, been in the service of the employer and as per Explanation appended thereto a period of service shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be continuous which has not been interrupted by period of absence from working exceeding fourteen days. He also contended that the respondents themselves have produced the statement of salary of the claimant. From this statement it is obvious that in the months of December 1991 and January 1992 to May 1992 he was not in service with the respondents. He was reemployed in June 1992. He worked in June, July and August 1992 for 91 days. He was drawing Rs.1056/- as his wages in the months of July and August 1992 and received Rs.942/in the month of June 1992 as he worked for 29 days only in that month. Thus, according to him, Clause (a) is inapplicable in his case. According to him, his case falls under Sec.5 (c) of the Act and calculated as per this provision, his compensation comes to Rs.62,361.62 paise. Thus, according to him, the learned Commissioner fell into an error in dismissing his claim petition.

7. The appellant-claimants learned counsels last contention is that in the claim petition, the claimants also claimed interest under Sec.4a (3) of the Act at the rate of 18 percent per annum, but the learned Commissioner has not adverted to this prayer at all.

8. The respondents learned counsel argued that the claimantappellants case falls under Sec.5 (a) of the Act. Calculating the compensation under Sec.5 (a) of the Act, the respondents have already paid him Rs.27,3567- on April 28, 1994. He also argued that the claimant has failed to prove that he suffered 50 percent loss of earning capacity. Thus, according to him, the learned Commissioner has rig