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



Divisional Manager, J&K SFC v/s Bansi Lal


Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    MA. No. 781 of 2010 & IA. No. 1229 of 2010

    Decided On, 23 July 2018

    At, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR

    For the Appellant: Vipin Gandotra Advocate. For the Respondent: M.P.Gupta, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Divisional Manager, J&K State Forest Corporation, Division Bhaderwah is in appeal against the award dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Doda(hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in File No.82-I titled 'Bansi Lal vs Divisional Manager SFC Division Bhaderwah.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are that, on 03.12.2005, the respondent-workman while working in Compartment No. 73 of SFC Division Bhaderwah met with an accident and received grievious injuries as a result of which he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 70%. He laid a claim for compensation before the Commissioner against the employer i.e the appellant herein. In the claim petiton, it was claimed that the respondent-workman at the time of accident was earning Rs.130/- per day and accident took place under and in the course of employment of the appellant. The respondent-workman also claimed that at the time of accident he was 42 years old.

3. With a view to substantiate his claim, the respondent-workman, besides examining himself , also produced witnesses namely Mohd Din and Dr. N.D.Dar, Medical Officer District Hospital Doda. The appellant produced one witness in rebuttal besides entering into the witness box himself.

4. On the basis of evidence of the parties, the Commission found that the respondent was 42 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Doctor had certified permanent disablity of the respondent as 70%. Admittedly, there was no certificate by the qualified medical practitioner with regard to the loss of earning capacity of the respondent-workman. Doctor did explain the nature of injury suffered by respondent, but said nothing about the impact of disability suffered by him on his earning capacity. The Commissioner, without insisting for a certificate from the qualified medical practitioner or subjecting the respondent to medical examination to find out the impact of the injury on his earning capacity, of his own, determined the loss of earning capacity of the respondent as 70%. Admittedly, this finding of fact is not suported by any material on record.

5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner are perverse insofaras it has taken the loss of earning capacity of the respondent as 70%. Though no formal substantial question of law has been formulated in this appeal, yet learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has raised a question of law as to whether in the absence of any certificate by a medical practitioner with regard to the loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability suffered by the respondent-workman, the Commissioner is competent to assess such loss of earning capacity of his own. As rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts, and therefore, the dispute on facts cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in the appeal under Section 30 of the Act which specifically provides that appeal would lie only if it involves substantial question of law. He, however, submits that the question as to whether the Commissioner could have taken the disability of the workman as loss of earning capaacity without insisting for a certificate in this regard to be issued by the qualified medical practitioner is a susbtantial question of law involved in this appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the opnion that this appeal raises following substantial question of law:

'Whether the Commissioner of his own can assess the compensation on account of permanent partial disablement suffered by a workman in case of non scheduled injury without there being a certificate with regard to the loss of earning capacity issued by a qualified medical practitioner '?

07. To deal with aforesaid question formulated above, it would be appropriate to first take note of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which are reproduced hereunder:

4. Amount of compensation.-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:--

(a) where death results from the injury : an amount equal to forty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more;

(b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury : an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of ninety thousand rupees whichever is more;

(c) where permanent partial disablement result from the injury:(I) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of 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 proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury;

(d) where temporary disablement, whether total or partial, results from the injury : a half monthly payment of the sum equivalent to twenty-five per cent. of monthly wages of the employee, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)'.

08. From reading of Section 4 of the Act, it is clear that Section 4 of the Act deals with determination of amount of compensation. Section 4 (i)(a) deals with a case where death results from the injury and compensation in such case is provided to be an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by relevant factor or Rs.1,20,000/- which ever is more. Section 4(1)(c)(ii), however, deals with a case where the injury occurred to workman is not specified in Schedule 1. In such case, the compensation payable is to be such percentage of compensation as is payable in case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner. It is only where the injury does not fall under Part I or Part II of the schedule 1, section 4(1)(c)(ii) applies.

09. The bracketed portion in the relevant provisions 'as assessed by a qualified medical practitioner' was not part of the original Section, but was incorporated into the Act by Act 22 of 1984 w.e.f 1.07.1984. In the context of the aforesaid specific provision, the question that falls for determination is as to whether the loss of earning capacity can be assessed by the Commissioner of his own without there being any certificate by a qualified medical practitioner assessing the loss of earning capacity proportionate to the disablement. It may be noted that prior to the incorporation of the words 'as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner' the compensation for the injury not specified in Schedule 1 was to be decided on the basis of percentage of compensation payable in case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity caused by an injury, but when the Parliament specifically incorporated the aforesaid words, their significance cannot be watered down.

10. In the instant case, admittedly the Doctor’s certificate though mentions percentage of disability, but does not specifically mention the percentage of loss of earning capacity. In such situation, the Commissioner of his own could not have worked out the loss of earning capacity. Ideally, the Commissioner should have called for second medical report or get the appellant claimant medically examined by the medical board. However, in the absence of any certification by a qualified medical practitioner with regard to loss of earning capacity proportionate to the percentage of disability, the Commissioner was not competent to work out the loss of earning capacity of his own and on the basis of his own assessment. Permitting the Commissioner to do so would be tantamount to overlooking the significance and the object of the amendment introduced by Act 22 of 1984.

11. Similar question had arisen before the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sreedharan, 1995 (1) KLJ 189. The full Bench of Kerala High Court, after discussing the provisions of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and the incorporation of words 'as assessed by a qualified medical practitioner' by way of Act 22 of 1984 w.e.f 01.07.1984, in paragraph No.13 held thus:

'In view of the newly incorporated words 'as assessed by the qualified Medical Practitioner' by virtue of Act 22 of 1984, its importance and significance cannot be overlooked. As the Legislature in its wisdom chose to incorporate the aforesaid words into Section 4(1)(c)(ii), we cannot hold that it has been incorporated with no purpose. It is really with a purpose that it has been enacted. In view of the incorporation, it is not a case of ambiguity at all. In such a situation Court is not justified in stultifying the comprehensive language used by the Legislature especially when there is no ambiguity at all. The intention of the Legislature has to be collected from the words employed in the statute. In a case where there is no ambiguity in the words used in a provision, the Court cannot add or subtract words by its own construction. This is especially so when words are incorporated in a particular provision in a statute with definite purpose. That purpose cannot be read down by judicial interpretation. In other words, when a provision in a statute is itself clear and unambiguous due significance must be attached to it. In other words, when the Legislature used appropriate terminology, the statute has to be read in accordance with the words used therein'.

12. Similar view has been taken by a Single Bench of this Court in CIMA No. 119 of 2009 titled 'Divisional Manager vs Mohd Hanief and anr, decided on 06.06.2012. In the aforementioned case, the Single Bench had formulated a specific substantial question of law involving the incorporation of bracketed portion in Section 4(1)(c)(ii). After taking note of the said provisions, the Single Bench in the aforesaid case held thus:

'The Authority (ALC) has to decide the issue strictly in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act of 1923. In this case, admittedly loss of earning capacity has not been assessed by the qualified Medical Practitioner as per the mandate contained in Section 4(c)(ii) of the Act 1923. In cruel disregard to the mandate contained in Statute, Authority (ALC) itself has determined the loss of earning capacity suffered by the workman. The Authority (ALC) is creature of Statute and has to act within the boundaries of the Statute itself. The Authority (ALC) cannot travel beyond the defined frontiers of Act of 1993 and cannot determine the issue which he is not empowered by the Statute.

One of the doctors has deposed that workman-respondent suffered loss of 50% earning capacity and another has deposed that he has lost 5% of physical capacity. Learned Authority (ALC) took it upon itself to assess the loss of earning capacity and fixed same at 35%. It was not the power and jurisdiction of the authority (ALC) to determine the loss of earning capacity.'

13. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Single Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case which is also fortified by the view of Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Sreedharan’s case (supra) and accordingly hold that the Commissioner was not competent to assess the loss of earning capacity of his own without there being any certificate by a qualified medical practitioner certifying the loss of earning capacity proportionate to the percentage of disability suffered by a workman in the case of non scheduled injury. This answers the question formulated above.

14. The reliance put by the learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Golla Rajanna vs The Divisional Manager, AIR 2016 SC 5382 is misplaced. The aforesaid judgment has been rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances and, therefore, distinguishable. The impact of amendment made in 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act of 1923 by Act 22 of 1984 and incorporation of bracketed portion 'as assessed by a qualified medical practitioner' were not subject matter of discussion and adjudication in the aforem

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

entioned case. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the answer given to the formulated question, this Court is left with no option, but to set aside the award and remit the matter to the Commissioner with a direction to take appropriate steps for determining the loss of earning capacity of the appellant-workman in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 4(1)(c)(ii). Ordered accordingly. The Commissioner shall get the respondent medically examined by a qualified medical practitioner or the Board of Doctors for assessment of disability and the loss of earning capacity. Based upon such certificate, the Commissioner would proceed to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the respondentworkman. 16. It is noted that in compliance to the award passed by the Commissioner, the appellant has deposisted the awarded amount before the Commissioner and at the time of issuance of notice in this appeal, this Court vide its order dated 30.12.2010 had directed the Commissioner not to release 50% of the amount deposited with him by the appellant. It is, thus, apparent that 50% of the amount has already been withdrawn by the respondents and if the same is not withdrawn, the Commissioner shall immediately release the same in favour of the respondent. Remaining 50% amount, however, shall be dealt with when the matter is reconsidered by the Commissioner and fresh award is passed by him.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Pratap Lal Teli Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Public Prosecutor, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2019 Hori Lal & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Gopi Lal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-09-2019 Rakesh Goel Versus Hira Lal ( Now Deceased) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
18-09-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshwar Lal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Anshuman Dubey & Another Versus Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Others High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar Versus Vidisha Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Ami Lal Versus Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur & Another High Court of Orissa
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Laxman Lal Latta Versus Kamlesh Parmar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Shiv Lal Versus Om Parkash Kashyap High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Bharat Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-08-2019 Dilip Kumar Mahesh Versus Sundar Lal Maurya High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-08-2019 Sunder Lal Versus State High Court of Delhi
13-08-2019 Dhanpat Lal Sharma Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
08-08-2019 Hazari Lal Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services, Sirsa & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-08-2019 Nand Lal & Others Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-08-2019 Panna Lal Gaur & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-08-2019 Moti Lal Daga & Another Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 Basant Lal Memorial College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Others High Court of Delhi
29-07-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board Versus Roshan Lal Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
24-07-2019 Bhajan Lal & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni V/S Sohan Lal (D) thru L.R. and Others. Supreme Court of India
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni Versus Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr & Others Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Manik Lal Prasad Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Versus Kuladhipati, Vikram University & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
11-07-2019 Jagdish Lal & Others Versus Ram Chander & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-07-2019 Hiru & Others Versus Mansa Ram (deceased) through his LRs Chaman Lal & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-07-2019 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-07-2019 Raju Lal Das Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
01-07-2019 Atul Kumar Gupta & Others Versus Mitthan Lal Aggarwal & Others High Court of Delhi
11-06-2019 Galgotias University, Through Its Registrar, Uttar Pradesh Versus Malayala Manorama Company Ltd., Through Its Vice President (P/A), Lal John, Kottayam High Court of Kerala
07-06-2019 Mohan Lal Raina Versus Indu Raina & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
06-06-2019 Jai Kumar Gupta & Others Versus Bajrang Lal Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-06-2019 Chaman Lal & Others Versus Rakesh Nanda & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
30-05-2019 Gulzari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-05-2019 Sham Lal & Another Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-05-2019 Ram Lal Thakur Versus Executive Engineer HPPWD High Court of Himachal Pradesh
14-05-2019 Sri Manik Lal Sen & Others Versus Bimal Kanta Chattopadhyay & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2019 Jagga Ram Versus Rattan Lal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-05-2019 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mohan Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-05-2019 Lal Bahadur Gautam Versus State of U.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-05-2019 Haji Lal Hussain Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
02-05-2019 Lakhan Lal Chauhan & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
01-05-2019 Shankar Lal Versus Lrs of Satya, Narayan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
26-04-2019 Maiku Lal Sen Versus Jay Jay Ram Upadhyay & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-04-2019 Lal Chand Versus Trust Prabh Dayal Shah Moti Ram Shah & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
15-04-2019 Bihari Lal Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
12-04-2019 Ram Prakash & Another Versus Puttan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
10-04-2019 The State of Rajasthan Versus Kanhaiya Lal Supreme Court of India
10-04-2019 Jitender Tomar & Another Versus Shankar Lal & Others (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) High Court of Delhi


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box