J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the applicant in WC.No.493 of 2013, which came up for consideration before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation / Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, who by an award dated 02.09.2016, on consideration of the facts and circumstances and the claim made, had granted a compensation of Rs.5,15,158/- for the injuries suffered by the Appellant. Questioning that particular award, this present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

2.A brief examination of the facts would show that the appellant had suffered injuries and fracture in tibia and fibula. The bones were exposed and there were also multiple grievous injuries all over the body. The appellant herein was under the employment of the 1st respondent, who remained ex-parte even before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and also before the Appellate Court. The burden was shifted to the 2nd respondent / Oriental Insurance Company to examine the claim of the applicant and redress the grievance.

3.Heard Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4.I deeply appreciate the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that he would restrict the appeal to only one issue. The said fact is also to be much appreciated and as a matter of fact, even Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent stated that since the issue had been watered down to one aspect, he would also reply to that particular issue.

6.A perusal of the award under question, which is dated

02.09.2016 shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had determined the monthly wages at Rs.7,283/-. The said determination contains two components namely, basic wages at Rs.3,570/- and dearness allowance at Rs.3,713/-. The same had been determined on the basis of the order of the Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.(Ms).No.640-2D, Labour and Employmemt, dated 23.07.2009. Under normal circumstances that particular determination of the monthly wages based on a Government Order issued by the State of Tamilnadu would not be questioned.

7. Mr.Terry Chellaraja however, widened the arguments and pointed out Section 4 of the erstwhile Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which related the amount of compensation, which can be granted. The learned counsel made specific reference to Explanation II of Section 4, which reads as follows:-

“Explanation II: Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only.”

The said explanation actually places an embargo or a limit on the monthly wages, which can be taken into consideration, namely at Rs.4,000/-.

8.The learned counsel then pointed out the Employee's Compensation Act(1923), which is now in force and which has amended the erstwhile Workmen's Compensation Act, 1920.

9.Section 4 of Employee's Compensation Act, (1923) also deals with the amount of compensation. But the aforementioned Expalanation II, which was there in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1920 had been deleted. On the other hand, the Parliament had introduced Section 1-B, which reads as follows:-

“(1B) 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.”

The said proviso places an obligation on the Central Government to issue a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying the monthly wages in relation to an employee.

10.Thereafter, a notification was issued and has been produced.

It was issued on 31.05.2010 in the Government of India Gazette, wherein, the following has been issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment:-

S.G.1258(E):- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1