Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 516 (JK)

Divisional Manager, SFC v. Mohd. Sultan Parray

2014-12-16

M.M.KUMAR, TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J.:- 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CIMA No. 123/2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the applicant/respondent No. 1 herein is entitled to interest on compensation amount, from the date of receipt of injury. It is relevant to notice herein as under the brief resume of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the CIMA as well as the memo of appeal. 2. The applicant-respondent No. 1 was a workman employed by the non-applicant-appellant herein. On 11.02.1998, respondent No. 1 received injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working on Mahan in Khellani Nullah (Bhaderwah). A scant fell on his knee which resulted into disablement of the applicant-respondent No. 1. He was working as Mistry and his monthly wages were Rs. 2,000/- and his age at the time of accident was 45 years. Because of non-payment of compensation for the injury, applicant-respondent No. 1 filed an application for payment of compensation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act), Doda, who, vide order dated 28.05.2007, allowed the application of applicant-respondent No. 1 and passed the award of Rs. 89,380 and directed the non-applicant/appellant to deposit the awarded amount within a period of thirty days. The non-applicant-appellant aggrieved of order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda filed CIMA No. 123/2007 before this Court on the ground that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda has not appreciated and considered the provisions of Section 4A of the workmen's compensation Act, 1923. 3. The learned Single Judge, while considering the provisions of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and also relying on various judgments passed by the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that claimant/workman is entitled to interest from the date of receipt of the injury and accordingly, dismissed the CIMA vide order dated 04.02.2009. Aggrieved whereof, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The appellant through the medium of present Letters Patent Appeal is only aggrieved of the interest part. The precise and only ground taken by the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal is that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering and appreciating Sub-section 2 of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. 4. The appellant through the medium of present Letters Patent Appeal is only aggrieved of the interest part. The precise and only ground taken by the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal is that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering and appreciating Sub-section 2 of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has discussed Section 4A and also relied on various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment titled Pratap Narian Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., reported as AIR 1976 SC 222 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed Section 4A(1) of the Act. 6. However, today, none appears for the appellant to prosecute this appeal and, the same is, therefore, considered without the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 7. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following portion of the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2009 passed in CIMA No. 123/2007:- "That apart, law laid down in Partap Narian Singh Deo's case (Supra) stands affirmed by yet another judgment of Supreme Court of India in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. and Anr., reported as (1998) 8 SCC 254, where, while agreeing with the view taken by a Full Bench of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Company v. Alavi, reported as (1998) 1 KLT 951 , their lordships had held that Two Judge Bench decision of Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company v. V.K. Neelakandan was not the correct view of law. Their lordships had held as follows:- "A two Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Neelakandan however, took the view that the Workmen's Compensation Act being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. The two Judges Bench in Neelakandan case however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. The two Judges Bench in Neelakandan case however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the large Bench in Pratap Narian Singh Deo case the view expressed by the two-Judge Bench in Neelakandan case is not correct. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above-noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workman becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Narian Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata lays down the correct law and we approve it." In view of the above position in law and Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case holding the field as to workman's entitlement to interest on compensation amount from the date he receives injury, Union of India v. Antar Singh decided by this Court cannot be accepted as laying down correct legal position. At the time of consideration of Antar Singh's case this Court had not been apprised of the law, which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had laid down in Pratap Narian Singh Deo and Kerala Electricity Board cases (Supra). For all what has been said above, I am of the view that claimant/workman is entitled to interest from the date of receipt of injury and, in that view of the matter, appellant's contention that workman would be entitled to interest one month after the date of the award, may not be tenable. The only plea raised by appellant's counsel, questioning the awards, having failed, in view of the law laid down in Pratap Narian Singh Deo's case, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly." 8. The only plea raised by appellant's counsel, questioning the awards, having failed, in view of the law laid down in Pratap Narian Singh Deo's case, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly." 8. Learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect of the objections raised by the appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, merits to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed along with connected CMA(s), if any.