Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
C. A. Rahim
OBRA THERMAL POWER STATION - Appellant
Versus
WORKMENs COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 628 Of 1981
Decided On : 01/17/1997
WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 4-A, 10, 10-A, 10-B, 17, 19 - WORKMENS COMPENSATION RULES, 1924 - RULE 41 - POWER OF COMMISSIONER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS SUOMOTU - WAIVER OF LIMITATION PERIOD - IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND INTEREST - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from awards granted by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in favor of various employees of Obra Thermal Power Station, U.P. State Electricity Board, who suffered injuries during the course of their employment. The employer, Obra Thermal Power Station, challenged the awards on several grounds, including the Commissioner's authority to initiate proceedings suo motu, the waiver of the limitation period for filing compensation claims, and the imposition of penalty and interest.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Commissioner has the authority to initiate proceedings suo motu under Section 10-A of the Act, particularly in cases where the employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, such as depositing compensation or informing the Commissioner about the accident. This power is necessary to ensure that the rights of injured workmen are protected and that the provisions of the Act are strictly enforced. 2. The two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 10(1) of the Act for filing compensation claims is not mandatory but directory. The Commissioner has the discretion to waive the limitation period if the employer has defaulted in its obligations under the Act, such as failing to deposit compensation within the prescribed time or failing to inform the Commissioner about the accident. 3. The Commissioner is empowered under Section 4-A(3) of the Act to impose a penalty and interest on the employer for delay in paying compensation. The penalty can be up to 50% of the compensation amount, and interest is payable at the rate of 6% per annum. The imposition of penalty and interest is intended to deter employers from delaying the payment of compensation and to ensure that injured workmen receive their compensation promptly. 4. In cases of partial permanent disability, the compensation should be assessed based on the loss of earning capacity caused by the injury. The Commissioner erred in awarding compensation based on 100% loss of earning capacity when the evidence indicated that the claimant had not suffered complete and permanent loss of working capacity in both hands.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner has the power to initiate proceedings suo motu under Section 10-A of the Act? 2. Whether the Commissioner can waive the limitation period prescribed under Section 10(1) of the Act for filing compensation claims? 3. Whether the Commissioner is empowered to impose a penalty and interest on the employer for delay in paying compensation under Section 4-A(3) of the Act? 4. How should compensation be assessed in cases of partial permanent disability?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner's power to initiate proceedings suo motu under Section 10-A of the Act is essential to protect the rights of injured workmen and ensure strict enforcement of the Act. 2. The two-year limitation period under Section 10(1) of the Act is directory, not mandatory, and the Commissioner has the discretion to waive it in cases where the employer has defaulted in its obligations under the Act. 3. The Commissioner is empowered under Section 4-A(3) of the Act to impose a penalty and interest on the employer for delay in paying compensation. This is intended to deter employers from delaying payments and ensure prompt compensation for injured workmen. 4. In cases of partial permanent disability, compensation should be assessed based on the loss of earning capacity caused by the injury, not on the basis of complete and permanent loss of working capacity.
Final Decision: 1. The Commissioner's award in First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 was modified to reduce the compensation awarded to the claimant based on a 50% loss of earning capacity instead of 100%. The penalty and interest imposed by the Commissioner were upheld. 2. First Appeals From Order Nos. 629, 630, 631, 632, and 633 of 1981 were dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's awards of compensation, penalty, and interest.
( 1 ) ALL these appeals are taken together as common questions of facts and laws are involved.
( 2 ) THESE appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of the Commissioner, workmens Compensation, U. P. at Mirzapur.
( 3 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 the Commissioner for Workmens compensation passed award dated 28. 8. 1981 in favour of D. N. Baranwal,an employee of obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur. to the extent of Rs. 32,340/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date when it is due along with 50 per cent penalty amounting to rs. 16,170/ -.
( 4 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 629 of 1981 the Commissioner for Workmens compensation passed award dated 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Marwari, a contractors employee of Obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur to the extent of Rs. 5,040/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date when it is due. He also allowed Rs. 2,520/- towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent.
( 5 ) IN First Appeal From Order No, 630 of 1981. an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 allowing Rs. 5,880/- as compensation with 6 per. cent interest from the date when it is due to Qamaruddin, an employee of Obra Thermal power Station, U. P. State Electricity Board, obra, Mirzapur. He also allowed Rs. 2,940/ towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to the claimant.
( 6 ) IN First From Order No, 631 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Sukru, an employee of Obra Thermal Power station, U. P. State Electricity Board, Obra, mirzapur. Compensation of Rs. 3,823/- was allowed with 6 per cent interest from the date when it is due. Penalty at the rate of 50 per cent was imposed for which the claimant was allowed to receive a sum of Rs. 1,911. 50.
( 7 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 632 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Dukhil Ram, an employee of Obra thermal Power Station, U. P. State Electricity board, Obra, Mirzapur. Compensation of Rs. 3,931. 20 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date it is due-was allowed. An amount of Rs. 1,965. 60 was imposed towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to be paid to the claimant.
( 8 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 633 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981. in favour of Habibullah Ansari, an employee of Obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur. He was allowed to receive compensation of Rs. 18,144/-along with 6 per cent interest from the date when it is due. A further sum of Rs. 9,072/-was imposed as penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to be received by the claimant. All these awards were passed with cost and with a direction to pay it within 30 days from the date of order.
( 9 ) OBRA Thermal Power Station, U. P state Electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur has filed these appeals against the orders of the commissioner for Workmens Compensation passed on different dates allowing compensation to the claimants with interest and penalty for default under Section 4-A of the Workmens compensation Act, 1923 as amended in 1959.
( 10 ) IN First From Order Nos. 628 of 1981 and 631 of 1981 following questions have been raised. (1) Whether the Commissioner has power to initiate proceedings suomotu? (2) If the injury was partial permanent disability and compensation paid was arbitrary? (3) Whether the penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent can be imposed according to law?
( 11 ) IN First Appeal From Order Nos. 629 of 1981 arid 633 of 1981 following questions have been raised : (1) Whether the Commissioner can waive the period of limitation within which application claiming compensation should have been filed under Section 10 of the Workmens compensation Act (2) Whether the penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent can be imposed according to law3. IN First Appeal From Order Nos. 630 and 632 of 1981 following common que
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
