J U D G M E N T

The Award dated 29.01.2018 passed in E.C.O.P.No.157 of 2017 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The Substantial question of law raised in the appeal reads as under:

“(1) Whether the 1st respondent is justified in fixing the monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- to the deceased Workman as against the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month by the 2nd respondent which is not even contradicted by the 2nd respondent, by filing counter affidavit or by adducing any evidence is justified?

(2) Whether the 1st respondent is justified in not considering the future prospects / Increase of salary to the deceased Driver who was just 40 years of age at the time of death and not awarding compensation for the loss of consortium to the wife, children and mother of the deceased?

(3) Whether the first respondent is justified in awarding a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which has been increased enormously in all accident cases?”

3. Though the Substantial question of law are relatable to the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the monthly income taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the compensation is in violation of the minimum wages fixed by the State Government in G.O.2D.J1.No.91 dated 12.12.2013. Undoubtedly, a sum of Rs.8,000/- as monthly income was fixed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour pursuant to the Central Government Notification issued on 31.05.2010 under Section 4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act. But the State Government during the year 2013, enhanced the minimum wages to the workmen as Rs.9787/- under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Thus, the beneficial minimum wages under the general law is to be applied for the purpose of grant of compensation.

4. This Court also elaborately considered the enhancement made by the State Government regarding minimum wages to be paid under the Minimum Wages Act in judgment dated 27.01.2021 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