Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Heju Ram on 5 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
FAO No. 85/2008
Decided on 5.8.2015
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ................Appellants
Versus
Heju Ram ..........Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioners rt : Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional
Advocate General.
For the respondent : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Munish, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
This appeal has been instituted against Award dated 21.11.2007 rendered by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation. The accident has taken place on 17.8.2000.
However, learned Commissioner, has applied provisions of amended Act, which came into force admittedly with effect from 8.12.2000. These provisions could not be applied retrospectively.
2. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC) have held that sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen's ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:39 :::HCHP 2 Compensation Act, 1923 as amended in 1995 would not apply retrospectively. Their Lordships have held as under:
.
"[4] A two Judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904- 16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11-1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident.
of The two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case (supra) , however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case (AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 222) as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.
rt Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case, the view expressed by the two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case is not correct.
[7] Insofar as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back.
Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above."
3. Learned Single Judge of Jharkhand at Ranchi High Court in Project Officer, Basudeopur Colliery vs. Dhaneswari Devi, 2014 ACJ 1325 has held that the calculation of compensation amount should be made under the provision ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:39 :::HCHP 3 existing on the date of incident relying upon Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC). Learned .
Single Judge has held as under:
"[3] It is further pointed out that the original claim of the claimant was also under the same calculation, but the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad has wrongly calculated the amount under the amended provision and therefore, the aforesaid finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is of liable to be set aside and the amount payable to the claimant shall be calculated in view of the existing provision as contained under section 4 at the relevant point of time. In this context learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the rt judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Walsala Kr. and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 3502 In paragraph-5 their lordships have held as follows:--
5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi,1998 80 FLR 72 wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another lays down the correct law and we approve it."
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Award is modified in the following manner:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:39 :::HCHP 4Compensation= 2000x169.44x45x60 = 91,497/-
100 x 100 The respondents shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per .
annum on the aforesaid amount from 17.8.2000 to 17.11.2007.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Rajiv Sharma) of Judge August 5, 2015 (vikrant) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:39 :::HCHP