Madras High Court
The Management vs P.Seetjaraman on 20 May, 2015
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON :06.08.2019
DELIVERED ON: 27.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A(MD)No.961 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.10299 of 2018
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Kumbakonam) Limited
Tiruchirappalli District
... Appellant/Respondent
Vs
P.Seetjaraman ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation 1923 against
the award passed in W.C.No.149 of 2014 dated
20.05.2015 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant :Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondent:Mr.A.Ragul
**********
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation 1923 against the award passed in W.C.No.149 of 2014 dated 20.05.2015 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli.
2. The facts of the case is that the respondent herein is the claimant and the petitioner herein is the appellant. The respondent herein while he was working as a conductor with the appellant on 17.08.2010 in the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45-N-2194 on its trip to Chidambaram-Thirupp ur, the bus met with an accident near Laalgudi, by which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his left leg was amputated below knee, hence, he made a claim for a sum of Rs.9,79,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs.1,76,695/- towards expenses for medical treatment.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. The transport Corporation resisted the claim petition and contended that the claimant was given alternative employment with pay protection and hence, the transport Corporation cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. The Court below on appreciation of evidence on record had passed an award for a sum of Rs.6,39,336/- as compensation payable by the transport corporation. Aggrieved over the same, the transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that when the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-employees Compensation Commissioner was offered alternative employment in the transport Corporation from 17.03.2011 with pay protection, actually, there is no loss of earning capacity as alleged by the claimants. He would also assail the medical expenses awarded by the Court below on the reason that according to him there is no oral and documentary evidence. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of the Court below. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant contented that the Court below awarded a just and reasonable compensation, after analysing the evidence on record and the same does not require interference by this Court. He would further contend that the receipt of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act will not disentitle reinstatement of workman with consequential benefits. He submitted that in cases involving permanent partial disablement, the courts will have to necessarily see whether the earning capacity is reduced in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident and not merely a particular employment in which he is engaged or in which the salary received by the disabled. He would further submit that the Workmen Compensation Act is a beneficial piece of legislation which came into effect when other enactments providing security to the workforce were available and the legislature while drafting the Act was conscious about the other enactments and in spite of the same provided additional benefits to the disabled workmen. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 5.1. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments:-
(a) Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs Sriniwas Sabata and another reported in 1976 (1) LLJ 235.
(b)Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav Vs Gurindar Singh and another reported in 1992 (1) LLJ 156.
(c)National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Mohd.Saleem Khan and another reported in 1992 (2) LLJ 377.
(d)Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524
(e)Metropolitan Transport Ltd.Chennai Vs K.Ravichandran reported in 2005 (2) LLN 869
(f)A.Subramani Vs. The management of Tamil reported in 2007 (5) CTC 386.
(g) Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs Pradap son of Zhampannappa Lamzane and another reported in (2018) 9 SCC 570.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and perused the materials available on record.
7. The only point to be considered in this appeal is whether the order of the Court below is sustainable in the eye of law?
8. The main contention of the transport Corporation is that there is no actual loss of earning capacity in view of the fact the claimant was given alternative employment with pay protection. In otherwords, having received the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and alternative employment from the Corporation, and that the claimant can claim only one relief from the Corporation. But, this Court is of the considered view that the loss of earning capacity in the case of a 'permanent partial disablement', the comparison between the wages drawn by the workmen before and after the accident, from his employer at the time of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the accident is not a determinative factor. If that be so, an employer to tide over the liability may offer a temporary employment to the claimant/workman to deprive him his entitlement under the beneficial legislations enshrined in our Constitution of India. That would be against the legislative intent too. The plea that there being no loss in the wages, compensation could not have been awarded, cannot be accepted. Merely because the workman has received the compensation for his injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is not permissible for the employer to deny the benefits of on the ground of alternative employment. This welfare measure was further strengthened by the Government in view of induction of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, which contains a directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during the service. In the case of Subramani Vs The management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, when an issue cropped up that when a person having received a compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether he is http://www.judis.nic.in 8 entitled to claim alternative employment to which the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in favour of the claimant therein. The Division Bench of this Court has also observed in that order that the benefit envisaged under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act must be considered in addition to the benefits contemplated under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is the latest development for protecting the labour force of our Country. That apart, the injury in the case at hand was so grievous and his left leg was amputated below knee. The rest of his life, after the accident, cannot be described in words. He has to depend on somebody even for day today life. Just because alternative employment is given to the claimant, it is to be borne in mind that it will no way replace the blissful life of a normal person. In this regard, the Court below have rightly sailed on the judgment of the Management Sree Enterprises, Salem Vs Kallasm, reported in (1980 (1) MLJ 480) to emphasis the fact that the claimant has to continue his life http://www.judis.nic.in 9 with untold sufferings in the rest part of his life. Therefore, the Court below was correct in directing the appellant to grant the compensation to the the claimant.
9. Viewed from any angle, this court has no reason but to confirm the order of the Court below. Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below in all respects stand sustained. Consequently, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. The amount awarded by the court below shall be deposited along with interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall withdraw the amount as per order of the Court below. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed. No costs.
27.09.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bala
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
J.NISHA BANU,J.
bala
To,
The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli.
Copy to:-
The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-delivery order made in C.M.A(MD)No.961 of 2018 27.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in