Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Sri G H Nagaraju on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12869
MFA No. 6209 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6209 OF 2015 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR,
KMF MOTHER DAIRY,
YALAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560065. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE (V/C))
AND:
SRI G.H. NAGARAJU
S/O. HONEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
TECHNICAL OFFICER,
HOUSE NO.D-5,
MOTHER DAIRY PREMISES,
GKVK POST,
BANGALORE-560 065. ... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M (BY MRS. MANJULA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE (V/C))
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION ACT, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.06.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.141/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 34TH ACMM, MEMBER,
COURT SMALL CAUSES, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING AN
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,37,916/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A. FROM 21.02.2013 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12869
MFA No. 6209 of 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
The Karnataka Milk Federation Mother Dairy is before this Court assailing the judgment and order dated 15.06.2015 passed in ECA No.141/2014 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV A.C.M.M. Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) whereby the Tribunal by the impugned order held that respondent is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,37,916/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.02.2013 till the date of payment.
2. Facts are that, the respondent, a permanent employee of the appellant, working as a technical officer, on 21.01.2013 when he was repairing the Conveyer Motor, the motor started running and his left hand forefinger got injured. Due to the impact of the accident the respondent's forefinger was amputated. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Tribunal. The claim made by the respondent is that he is working as a technical officer, who while discharging his duty during the course of his -3- NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 employment has suffered the injury, which led to permanent disablement and sought for compensation.
3. The claim was resisted by the appellant interalia contending that the respondent is to be termed as "Workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such he is not entitled for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). Further the injury sustained by the respondent was due to his negligence, the same cannot be attributed to the employer. The medical expenses were borne by the appellant as benefit for inpatient medical claims of the employees, he was given medical leave with full salary, inspite of receiving full amount and benefits, a false claim is filed.
4. The Tribunal based on the pleadings framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, he was employed under the Respondent at the time of incident and the relationship between himself -4- NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 and the respondent is that of employee and employer?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 21.01.2013 at about 5-15 p.m., when he was repairing conveyer motor, accidentally his left hand forefinger got injured and amputated, which caused during the course of employment with the Respondent?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?"
5. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondent had met with an accident while in employment, there was an employer and employee relationship, the injury sustained is permanent in nature, by the impugned order awarded compensation of Rs.4,37,916/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 21.02.2013 till the date of payment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge the following grounds:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 (1) That the respondent is a qualified technical officer drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,285/-, he was discharging supervisory and managerial nature of work and he cannot be termed as "Workman" for him to maintain the petition under the Act.
(2) The injury caused is due to the utter negligence of the respondent, therefore he is not entitled to any compensation under the Act. No safety norms were adopted by the respondent while repairing the motor of the Conveyer, had the electrical cable removed from its main electrical source the motor would not have run suddenly causing injury to the respondent.
(3) Having held by the Tribunal that there is no loss of future income, having continued with the job in the same manner, there being no loss of salary was not justified in awarding compensation calculation based on percentage of loss of earning capacity.
(4) There was no loss of future income arising out of disability, medical expenses incurred by the respondent were also borne by the appellant. There was no -6- NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 change of working conditions. This aspect though was considered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarding the compensation was not justified. The disability assessment by the Tribunal is not based on the settled proposition of law and as such the same warrants interference.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the order passed by the Tribunal submits that undisputedly there is a permanent disability i.e., the respondent has lost his left hand forefinger in the accident during the course of employment. The injury sustained is permanent disability, a scheduled injury as defined under the Act, rightly assessed by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
8. This Court on 27.07.2016 admitted the present appeal, without framing a substantial question of law. On 20.12.2024 this Court on hearing framed the following substantial question of law-
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 "Whether the workmen is entitled for compensation for disability even though he was continued in the service by the employer without any reduction in salary?"
9. The relationship between employer and employee is not in dispute, during the course of the employment the respondent caused injury to his left hand forefinger, impact led to the amputation of the forefinger. That the injury sustained is due to negligence on part of the respondent, from the perusal of the material on record there is no corroborative evidence on part of the appellant to indicate that there was any negligence on part of the respondent while repairing the Conveyer Motor, admittedly as per EXs.P 8 and P 9 the Job Chart indicate the duties and responsibility of the respondent, his nature of work is maintenance and repair of plant and machinery. In the absence of any corroborative evidence regarding negligence what remains for the Court is to determine whether the awarding of compensation towards the amputation of his forefinger is justified. It is also the contention of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 appellant that the respondent is not a Workman as defined under 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. At this stage it is relevant to consider the definition of "employee" defined under Section 2 (dd) as under:
"(dd) "employee" means a person, who is-
(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or
(ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship,
(b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft,
(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle,
(d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or -9- NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015
(iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;"
10. On a plain reading of the definition referred above, it clearly indicates that the person employed in any capacity as is specified in schedule II of the Act has to be considered as an employee for claiming compensation under this Act. Under the original Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 under Section 2(n) the workman was defined. By the Act of 45 of 2009 clause (n) came to be omitted and clause 2(dd) came to be inserted by the Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010. The accident is of the year 2013, in the said circumstances, the employee as defined under section 2(dd) of the Act has to be taken.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 Thus, the contention of the appellant that the respondent does not fit under the definition of the Act demerits, the Court opines that the respondent is an employee as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it could be seen that the order of the Tribunal, that the Tribunal assessed that there is a permanent total disablement of 11% to the whole body as the respondent has lost his forefinger in the accident, the salary of the respondent was Rs.50,285/- per month. Taking the permanent total disability amounting to 60%, the income arrived by the Tribunal is Rs.30,171/- (50,285 x 60%) and applying the multiplier 131.95 as per schedule by considering the age of the respondent as 56 years, the compensation arrived by the Tribunal is 30,171 x 131.95 x 11% and the compensation awarded is Rs.4,37,916.98/- towards the loss of forefinger of the left hand.
11. Section 3 of the Act, defines Employer's liability for compensation if any personal injury is caused to (an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 employee) by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II, provided that the employer shall not be so liable - (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the (employee) for a period exceeding (three) days. The injury caused to the respondent is a disablement as defined under Schedule I Part II Serial No 27.
12. Section 4 deals with amount of compensation, sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 4 reads as under:
"4. Amount of compensation.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:
(a) x x x
(b) where permanent an amount equal to sixty total disablement per cent. of the monthly results from the wages of the injured injury employee multiplied by the relevant factor;
or
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12869
MFA No. 6209 of 2015
an amount of one lakh
and forty thousand
rupees, whichever is
more:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).
Explanation I. - xxx
(c) where permanent (i) in the case of an injury partial disablement specified in Part II of result from the injury Schedule I such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury; and
(ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12869
MFA No. 6209 of 2015
proportionate to the loss of
earning capacity (as
assessed by the qualified
medical practitioner)
permanently caused by the
injury;"
13. Under the Act, a scheduled injury refers to an injury listed in the schedule of Act, which entitles the injured worker to compensation as per the prescribed formula, merely because an employer continued to pay salary and there was no loss of income, would not nullify the workers right to seek compensation under the Act. The Act does not state that the compensation should be denied if the employer continued salary payment, the compensation is based on the medical impairment and the injury lead to permanent disability (total or partial), the Tribunal's award of compensation is justified and the injury sustained though did not affect the earning capacity, the Act ensures that an injured worker is entitled for compensation for physical impairment. The permanent
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12869 MFA No. 6209 of 2015 disability though partial reduces efficiency justifying compensation under Section 4 of the Act. From Section 4 it envisages that if the injuries suffered falls under the schedule of Act, the employee is automatically entitled for compensation regardless whether the salaries were paid.
14. In the instant case, the quantification arrived by the Tribunal is justified and the same does not warrant any interference, accordingly, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered against the appellant and this Court pass the following-
ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19