JUDGMENT PER P. MURGESEN, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai) dated April 25, 2002 in V.T.C. No. 221/2001. The respondent was a worker employed by the appellant herein, as Senior Earth Equipment Operator. He drove the "Terrex" from Alangulam to Virudhunagar to unload the coal from railway wagons into lorries. While he was driving the terrex near Kumaralingapuram, in order to give way to a bus he turned it to the left side of the road, due to which the vehicle toppled down and in the accident, he sustained grievous injuries in his leg. The injured claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,58,340/- before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner"). Before the Commissioner, P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 were examined and Exhibit A-1 to A-8, Exhibit R-1 and R-2 were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,13,755/- and directed the appellant to deposit the said sum within 30 days of the date of receipt of the order, failing which an interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit was also directed to be deposited along with the award amount. Challenging the award of the Commissioner, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The Doctor assessed the disability of the claimant as 75%, which is not in dispute. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that they have paid more than half of the pay to the claimant and therefore, the excess amount has to be deducted. For this, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per the award, the respondent/claimant is entitled to full wage. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that as per the award, during the period of treatment, the respondent/claimant is entitled to full pay. For this, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per the award, the respondent/claimant is entitled to full wage. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that as per the award, during the period of treatment, the respondent/claimant is entitled to full pay. Section 4(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, reads as under : "(2) The half-monthly payment referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be payable on the sixteenth day - (i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more, or (iii) alter the expiry of a waiting period of three days from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of less than twenty-eight days; and thereafter half-monthly during the disablement or during a period of five years, whichever period is shorter : Provided that - (a) there shall be deducted from any lump sum or half-monthly payments to which the workman is entitled the amount of any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer by way of compensation during the period of disablement prior to the receipt of such lump sum or of the first half-monthly payment, as the case may be; and (b) no half-monthly payment shall in any case exceed the amount, if any, by which half the amount of the monthly wages of the workman before the accident exceeds half the amount of such wages which he is earning after the accident." As per the Act, only half monthly payment alone is permissible to the injured. But, in this case, the injured was getting full pay. The Award cannot overrule the statutory Act. So, the excess amount paid should be deducted. In view of these reasons, the appeal is remitted to the Commissioner to dispose of the case accordingly. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.