Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 514 (HP)

M. D. AGRO PACKAGING INDIA LTD. v. SURAT RAM

2005-12-30

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGEMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral).: This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being FAO Nos. 229 and 402 of 2003 as they arise out of the same order. 2.The brief facts necessary for decision of the case that claimant Surat Ram was admittedly employed in Agro Packaging India Ltd. as daily-wage labourer and was getting Rs.25/- per day as wages. On 4th January, 1995 the applicant received physical injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment. Thereafter it appears that some correspondence was exchanged between the parties. The employer bore the medical expenses of the claimant and in addition to bearing the medical expenses Rs.10,000/- was paid to the wife of the claimant and finally the employer regularized the services of the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant filed a petition on 5.6.1999 for grant of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. This petition has been allowed and the compensation has been assessed at Rs.1,98,433/-. However, since Rs.10,000/-has been paid, compensation of Rs.1,88,433/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded. 3. The appeal filed by the employer was admitted on the following Substantial questions of law. "2. Whether the compensation in kind is as good a compensation as in terms of money under the Workmens Compensation Act? 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to any compensation in terms of money after he had received all the benefits on compassionate ground on account of the said accident, from the appellants to which he was not otherwise entitled to?" 5. Whether delay in filing the application could be condoned under the facts and circumstances of the case?" In the appeal field by the claimant the same was not admitted on any substantial question of law. The only substantial question of law framed is as follows: "1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner below has failed to take judicial notice of the Government notification which raised daily wages of a daily wager of Rs.45.74 per day w. e. f. 1.6.1993 and its applicability to the appellant and thus not awarded the compensation to the appellant correctly?" 6. Question 2&4 in the appeal filed by the employer cover the same ground and can be dealt with together. The contention of Mr. Question 2&4 in the appeal filed by the employer cover the same ground and can be dealt with together. The contention of Mr. Ronta, is that since the purpose of the Workmens Compensation Act is to grant compensation for the medical expenses and for the future loss of income and since the workman has been well compensated in this case by the employer, therefore, no petition for grant of compensation could lie. He relies upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and others, AIR 1969 SC 634. However, at the outset it may be mentioned that the said judgment is totally inapplicable in the present case. In that case the validity of a provision in the Land Acquisition Act which provided for compensation to be paid in kind was under challenge. The Court upheld the validity of such provision. In the present case the Workmens Compensation Act provides for payment of compensation in monetary terms only and no other mode of payment of compensation is provided. 7. The only question to be decided is whether the fact that the employer provided employment to the claimant and paid his medical expenses is sufficient ground to hold that the claimant is not entitled to compensation. 8.1 have gone though the record and from the record it is found that the claimant sent a letter to the employer Ext.P-10 dated 25.7.1995 stating therein that he had suffered injuries during the course of employment and it had been promised that he would be given regular employment and he was still waiting for the same Ext.P-11 is the Resolution of the Board of Directors whereby it was agreed to grant regular employment to the claimant. The Resolution reads as follows: "Shri Surat Ram who was working in plant at AIPIL had met with an accident while working on machine as a result of which his right hand had to be amputed. Shri Surat Ram who now is present working at Head Office as Daily Wage Officer Helper may be regularized on compassionate grounds in lieu of compensation and waiving off condition of requisition from Employment Exchange." 9. Thereafter, a formal of appointment was issued to the claimant, which is Ext.P-4. This does not contain any stipulation to the effect that the regularization is lieu of compensation. 10. Thereafter, a formal of appointment was issued to the claimant, which is Ext.P-4. This does not contain any stipulation to the effect that the regularization is lieu of compensation. 10. It is contended on behalf of the owner that since the Board of Directors in its Resolution has decided to grant employment to the claimant in lieu of compensation, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 11. I am unable to accept this contention. The right to claim compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act is a statutory right and in fact such statutory right cannot be taken away even by agreement between the parties. Section 17 of the Workmens Compensation Act reads as follows: "1.7. Contracting out- Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act." 12. .It clearly provides that any agreement whether made before or after the commencement of the Act whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation shall be null and void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the Act. The intention of the legislature can also be gauged from a perusal of Section 8(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, which reads as follows: "8. Distribution of compensation- (1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workmen whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation." 13. It is clear from a perusal of the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act referred top above that the legislate had not envisaged that any person can be granted any other form of compensation except that provided under the Workmens Compensation Act. It is clear from a perusal of the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act referred top above that the legislate had not envisaged that any person can be granted any other form of compensation except that provided under the Workmens Compensation Act. There is no question of making payment in kind and thereby reducing the amount payment under the Workmens Compensation Act It is only if the payment in cash is made towards compensation finally to be paid that the same can be deducted or adjusted in the final amount due. This the Commissioner has done since he has reduced the compensation by Rs.10,000/- which was paid by way of compensation by the employer. 14. The other contention of Mr. Ronta is that the amount paid by way of medical expenses should be reduced or at least adjusted from the amount of compensation. The Workmens Compensation Act does not envisage the payment of any amount towards medical expenses or treatment Therefore, there can be no deduction of the amount if any, paid on account of medical expenses whether it was admissible under the Rules of not. 15. The last contention of Mr. Ronta is that the Commissioner has erred in condoning the delay in filing the claim application. The accident had occurred on 4.1.1995 and the limitation was 2 years and the claim petition was filed on 5.6.1999 and, therefore, there was delay of more than 2 years. The Workmen- Compensation Act is a social welfare legislation and the Commissioner rightly relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court has condoned the delay. He has exercised his discretion in a proper manner and this Court makes out no ground for interference in the exercise of such discretion. 16. As far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned the only ground raised is that though at the time when the accident took place the claimant was getting wages @ Rs.25/- per day but he was actually entitled to Rs.45.75 per day This may be the dispute, which can be raised in other for. However, in the present case the claimant was admittedly only getting wages of Rs.25/- per day at the time of accident. The Commissioner has calculated the compensation in right perspective. There is no infirmity in the award. 17. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.