IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.M.A.No.4536 of 2019

Vijay @ Vijayakumar ..Appellant/Applicant

Vs.

1.R.Elumalai

(since First respondent remained ex-parte

before the Forum his presence may be

dispensed with)

2. United India Insurance Company Limited,

No.134, Greams Road,

4^th Floor, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 006.

..Respondents/Respondents

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of

the Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Award dated

08.07.2019 and made in W.C.No.211/2016 on the file of the

Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynampet and the award copy

was received on 24.09.2019.

For Appellant :Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja

For Respondents

:Exparte - R1

R2 – Not ready in notice

J U D G M E N T

The Award dated 08.07.2019 passed in W.C.No.211 of 2016

is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The Substantial Question of law raised in the present

Miscellaneous Appeal is that whether the Joint Commissioner of

Labour-II is right in fixing the income of the injured as

Rs.8,000/- as monthly income, in view of the fact that the

minimum wages are enhanced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in

G.O.2D.No.3, Labour and Employment Department dated

27.01.2014. According to the Government order, fixing minimum

wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the

monthly income of the injured is to be fixed as Rs.10,127/-.

3. The appellant is the claimant, filed an application,

seeking compensation on the ground that on 15.07.2016 at about

19.40 hours, while he was travelling as a Cleaner in a lorry

bearing Registration No.AP-16-TV-2564, proceeding at National

Highways – 16, at Thummalapenta Cross Road, Kavali Mandal from

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vizag to Chennai. The vehicle met with an accident and the

appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the

body. He filed an application, seeking compensation.

4. The Joint Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the

issues with reference to the documents and the evidences

produced. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour fixed the monthly

income of the injured as Rs.8,000/- based on the Central

Government Notification issued on 31.05.2010.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

subsequently, the State Government enhanced the minimum wages

and fixed Rs.10,127/- in G.O.2D.No.3, Labour and Employment

Department dated 27.01.2014, as far as the Minimum Wages are

concerned. In the absence of any enhancement by the Central

Government, the enhancement made by the State Government under

the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, may be adopted for

the purpose of grant of compensation, in view of the fact that

the Workmen Compensation Act is a welfare legislation and the

minimum wages fixed in the State must be applied as far as the

particular State is concerned.

6. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the Joint

Commissioner of Labour ought to have fixed Rs.10,127/- as

monthly income for the purpose of calculating the

compensation.

7. This Court elaborately passed an order in C.M.A.No.897

of 2018 dated 27.01.2021 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. Theref