w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


B. Basappa & Another v/s J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Bellary

    MFA. No. 23798 of 2013 (WC)
    Decided On, 06 November 2019
    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL
    For the Appellants: Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.M. Sheelvant, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: MFA filed under Section 30(1) of WC Act, against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 passed in Kanapa/Cr-120/2011 (F) on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Bellary, partly allowing the claim petition for Compensation and seeking enhancement of Compensation.)Alok Aradhe, J.1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act” for the sake of brevity), the appellants have assailed the validity of the award dated 04.10.2011passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:“Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation committed an error of law in deciding the claim of the appellant under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, in view of the fact that the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, it came into force with effect form 18.01.2010 and the accident took place on 02.08.2011?”3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the deceased Prashant, who was working as Assistant Manager inside the factory at about 3.30 a.m. on 02.08.2011, fell inside the water pit and sustained serious bodily injuries and succumbed to injuries in Jindal Sanjeevini Hospital. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.41,062/- per month. Thereafter, the claimants filed the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Prashant.4. The respondent resisted the petition by denying the averments made in the petition.5. In the proceeding before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the claimants got examined himself as PW1 and relied upon exhibits P1 to P9. One of the officers of the respondent got himself examined as RW1. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation had allowed the claim in part and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,61,120/-, being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, had come into force with effect from 18.01.2010 and the accident took place on 02.08.2011 and therefore the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation grossly erred in assessing the compensation as per the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which was already repealed. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which came into force on 18.01.2010, half of the net salary of the deceased was required to be computed with a factor of 215.28, which was to be taken into account while computing the amount of compensation. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.7. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the records. Admittedly, the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 came into force with effect from 18.01.2010 and the accident has taken place thereafter that is on 02.08.2011. Therefore, the computation of compensation has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, whereas the computation of compensation has been made under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, which was already repealed. Therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has committed an error of law in applying the provisions of the Act, which was already repealed. Therefore the substantial question of lawframed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellants.8. Now we may advert to the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased was employed as Assistant Manager and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.41,062/- per month. The net salary which was payable to the deceased was Rs.32,926/- per month. Half of the net salary has to be taken into account for the purpose of computation of compensation which comes to Rs.16,463/- and after apply the factor of 215.28, the amou

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nt of compensation comes to Rs.35,44,154/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death, till its realization. Needless to state that in terms of the order dated 05.07.2017, the claimants shall not be entitled to interest for a period of 660 days. In view of the proceeding analysis, award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed.