Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 4A in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Budh Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 May, 2009
24. The next contention of petitioner's counsel is based on the
principle laid down in Budh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and
others, 2009 (3) SCT 333, that if the payment of salary is made to an
employee for which there is no misrepresentation, the recovery of excess
payment should not be made from him.
The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Pratap Narain Singh
Deo Vs. Sirinivas Sabata and another (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases
289, that the employer became liable to pay the compensation as soon as
personal injury was caused to the workman in the incident which
admittedly arose out of and in the course of employment. There was no
CWP No.6198 of 1994 -16-
suspension of the compensation pending settlement. It was further held
that it was the duty of the employer, under Section 4 A(1) of the Act, to
pay the compensation at the rate provided by the said section as soon as
the personal injury was caused to the employee. The employer, therefore,
cannot say that the amount of compensation would become due when the
same is settled by the Compensation Commissioner. It is otherwise not
disputed that the amount of compensation was paid under the orders of
Claims Commissioner under the Act of 1923 as stated by the petitioner in
his legal notice Annexure P-4, served upon the respondents before filing
of this petition.
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Manphool Singh And Ors. on 17 December, 2007
30. The law casts a duty upon the employer to inform the
Commissioner about any such incident and deposit the amount which was
applicable to the case. This Court in New India Assurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Manphool Singh and others, 2008 (1) PLR 706, held that the
amount of compensation becomes due on expiry of one month from the
date of injuries sustained by the workman.
Nirmal Rani vs Union Of India And Others on 29 July, 2008
In Nirmal Rani Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (4)
SCT 689, a Division Bench of this Court held that termination of service
CWP No.6198 of 1994 -6-
of the employee with retrospective effect was wholly illegal, unwarranted
and unjustified. The matter in that case related to the protection under
Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and termination of
the employee vide order dated 11.6.2002 with retrospective effect from
13.8.1994 which was after coming into force of the Act of 1995, was held
to be of no consequence.
National Insurance Co. vs Dayal Kaur (Smt.) And Ors. on 17 March, 1997
31. With regard to liability to pay interest on the delayed
payment it requires notice that the amendment with regard to payment of
interest was made in sub-clause 3 of Section 4A of the Act to increase the
liability of payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum in the year
1995 and before that the interest was @ 6% per annum as also observed
in National Insurance Company Vs. Dayal Kaur and others, (1997) 116
PLR 313. Therefore, the deceased-petitioner would be entitled to the
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of the
amount of compensation w.e.f. 14.1.1989 i.e. on expiry of one month
CWP No.6198 of 1994 -17-
period from 13.12.1988 the date of occurrence up to payment of the
amount of compensation disbursed vide cheques dated 29.3.1992 and
1.6.1992.
1