Referring to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has held that the Commissioner is bound to grant just and proper compensation even though the compensation determined by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act exceeds the amount claimed by the applicant.
The Court note that the Act defines ‘wages’ as including any privilege or benefit capable of being estimated in money, other than the allowances, contributions, etc., that are specifically excluded. Therefore, the expression ‘wages’ would cover the remuneration earned by an employee as a whole except the excluded elements.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Manu observed that the duty enjoined on the Commissioners under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Act is to provide just and proper compensation to the victims of employment accidents. The proceedings before the Commissioner are not governed by stringent rules regarding pleadings and evidence as in the case of criminal and civil trials.
If a strict view is taken that in no case shall the Commissioner grant compensation beyond what is sought for, even if the applicant is actually entitled to a higher sum, the outcome will be injustice. The Employee’s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation, one among various legislative measures adopted to ensure social security to the labour force of the country, added the Bench.
Regarding the impact of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1B) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the Bench observed that the Amendment Act of 2009 deleted the explanation that capped monthly wages at Rs.4,000. If the interpretation canvassed by the appellant is accepted, the resultant position would be that in no situation compensation can be granted taking into account the actual monthly wages if it exceeds the amount notified by the Central Government under Section 4(1B), which would render the provisions of Section 5 superfluous. The manifest intention was therefore to remove the cap.
The Bench therefore emphasised that the observation of the Supreme Court in Sivaraman K vs P. Sathishkumar [(2020) 4 SCC 594], regarding the objective of the amendment to remove the deeming cap on monthly income and to extend compensation on the basis of actual monthly wages cannot be considered as a mere passing observation, and even if reckoned as obiter, the same is binding. The contention that there is no loss of earning because the employee has been accommodated in a suitable post was rightly rejected by the Commissioner taking note of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Briefly, the respondent was a Lineman Grade-II in Kumily Electrical Section under the appellant. When the respondent and some other employees were engaged in replacing an old electric post, the post fell on the shoulder of the respondent resulting in a severe injury to his spinal cord. The respondent is suffering from paraplegia and is bedridden, and accordingly, an amount of Rs.7.17 lakhs was deposited by the appellant as compensation, and in addition to the same, sanctioned an amount of Rs.4.56 lakhs towards reimbursement of medical expenses.
The appellant extended the benefits under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and taking into account the disability of the respondent, he was accommodated in a supernumerary post with all service benefits, contending that there was no loss of earning to the respondent.
The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation however, held that the benefits granted under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 would not preclude the respondent from claiming benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, and that the disability had to be accepted as 100%. The Commissioner therefore fixed the compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages of the respondent, fixing the compensation payable as Rs.24.52 lakhs and directing the appellant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.17.35 lakhs along with interest.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Raju Joseph, along with Advocates C. Joseph Antony and Joseph Jose, for the Appellant
Advocates B. Ashok Shenoy, P.S. Gireesh, Umasanker U.U., and Aditya A. Shenoy, for the Respondent
