J U D G M E N T

The award dated 12.02.2019 passed in E.C.No.50 of 2018 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The question of law raised by the appellant is that the minimum wages notified by the State Government during the year 2013 was not followed while fixing the income for calculation of compensation. The Joint Commissioner of Labour fixed the monthly income of the workman is Rs.8,000/- which was notified by the Central Government during the year 2010. However, the minimum wages were not enhanced by the Central Government for long period. In between, the State Government revised the minimum wages and issued an order under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the minimum wages of workman as Rs.11,336.20/-. The beneficial fixation of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act is to be followed for calculation of compensation. In the present case, the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government in the year 2010 is adopted. Therefore, the appellant filed an appeal for enhancement of monthly income.

3. The issues regarding the fixation of monthly income in accordance with notification issued by the Central Government as well as the State Government are adjudicated by this Court in order dated 27.01.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.897 of 2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

18. Adopting the conventional procedures, the minimum wages are fixed by the State and Union for the purpose of fixing the monthly income. Undoubtedly prior to 18.01.2010, the date on which the amendment was issued, the deeming cap was in force and as per the deeming cap, a sum of Rs.4000/- was fixed as a monthly income. However, in the amendment dated 18.01.2010, such a deeming cap was removed and the Supreme Court also interpreted in the case of K.Sivaraman and Ors Vs.Sathish Kumar and Anr, cited supra that such deeming cap on the monthly income of the employee was removed from the amendment. Therefore, the actual monthly wages of the employee is to be taken into account for grant of compensation. Therefore, the employee is at liberty to establish his monthly income by submitting documents and evidences. Once an employee is able to establish his monthly income with an acceptable evidence, then, such monthly income is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of quantifying the compensation. In the cases where there is no proof is available, then, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government under Section 4(1B) is to be taken into account. 19. Thus, the object of fixation of monthly wages by the Central Government, is to ensure that the employees are not discriminated or to avoid discrepancies in quantifying the compensation. The authorities may have their own notions and approaches in the matter of fixation of monthly income. Such fixation cannot be at the discretion of the competent authorities. In the event of granting discretion, there are possibilities of discrepancies and denial of justice to the workmen. That is the reason why the Central Government thought fit to issue a notification regarding the minimum wages to be fixed for grant of compensation. The fixation of minimum wages under Section 4(1B) has got a definite object. The very object would be to eradicate the discrimination and inconsistencies in the matter of fixation of monthly income. However such fixation would not deprive the workmen from getting higher compensation based on his actual income if he is able to establish the monthly income with acceptable evidence.

20. For example, the workmen working in Government Transport Corporation is having definite evidence regarding his salary. The workers working in Government factories are having proof for their monthly income. Those workmen cannot be denied compensation on par with their monthly income. Because the compensation must be in commensuration with the status of the workmen and the income of the workmen in order to protect the interest of the family and their livelihood. In every legislation, t