JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. Successive Governments have failed; the so-called champions of labourers have also failed. But this court cannot fail to protect the interest of 40 crore workers. The failure is with regard to revision/enhancement of maximum wages of Rs. 8,000 fixed in the year 2010 under section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act. Non-revision of minimum wages, even after 8 years, affects more than 40 crore employees of this country, due to the increase in prices. Instead of concentrating on major issues like revision of monthly wages, it is being said that the so-called champions of workmen are concentrating on petty issues and indulging in militant trade unionism affecting the industrial growth of our nation. 2. International Labour Organisation, in its report dated 20.8.2018, 'India wage report: wage policies for decent work and inclusive growth', states that India's economy in the past two decades has seen an average GDP rate of 7 per cent. National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) estimate indicates that daily average wage has doubled between the period 1993-94 and 2011-12. Wages have seen a faster growth for the most vulnerable categories including workers in rural areas, informal employment, casual workers, female workers and low-paid occupations. ILO report also highlights the need for sustainable wage policies that would promote inclusive growth in the country. Based on NSSO 2011-12 data, ILO estimates that of the total 402 million workers, 51.4 per cent (206 million) were self-employed and 46.6 per cent (195 million) were wage employees including regular/salaried employees (74 million) and casual workers (121 million). The report also recommends to improve the current minimum wages system based on ILO standards. ILO also recommends strong wage policies which are key to promote inclusive growth in India. 3. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the award dated 26.7.2016 made in WC No. 343 of 2015 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. 4. The case of the appellants is that the deceased Vignesh alias Vigneswaran, who was the son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, was working as welder under the respondent No. 1 met with an accident. On 8.8.2015, when the deceased was pulling iron angles, he slipped and fell down from the 7th floor of respondent No. 1's building and sustained injuries. 1 and 2, was working as welder under the respondent No. 1 met with an accident. On 8.8.2015, when the deceased was pulling iron angles, he slipped and fell down from the 7th floor of respondent No. 1's building and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Chettinad Hospital, Chennai and given treatment, however, he succumbed to injuries. Hence, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased workman, the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed petition before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai claiming compensation. 5. The Employee's Compensation Commissioner, taking into consideration the materials on record, including evidence of Saraswathi, PW 1, which was in consonance with the statements found in Exh. P1-F.I.R., found that the deceased Vignesh alias Vigneswaran died while working as a welder under the respondent No. 1 on 8.8.2015. Considering Exh. P2, insurance policy No. 5004/89197869/00/000, issued by the respondent No. 2-insurer, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner held that there was an existing policy between the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2. Even though the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were served, they never appeared before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. However, in the absence of any contra or rebuttal evidence, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner was constrained to pass an award, based on the available sufficient positive evidence and records, determined the compensation at Rs. 8,95,840 and directed the respondents to pay the award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the award failing which to pay the award amount along with 12 per cent interest from 31st day of the accident till the payment. Though the Employee's Compensation Commissioner rightly found that as per Minimum Wages Government Order, the welder's monthly salary was Rs. 16,704, he reduced and fixed the monthly income as Rs. 8,000 as per Employee's Compensation Act and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,95,840. Questioning the adequacy of the quantum of compensation and reckoning the period of interest, the dependants of the deceased are before this court. 6. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II was right in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000 instead of Rs. 30,000? Questioning the adequacy of the quantum of compensation and reckoning the period of interest, the dependants of the deceased are before this court. 6. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II was right in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000 instead of Rs. 30,000? (2) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II is right in not awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident excluding 30 days from the date of accident under section 4-A of the EC Act, while the award was passed on merits? 7. The respondent No. 1-employer remained ex parte before the Commissioner. Though notice was served on 14.7.2017 and the name of the respondent No. 2-insurance company is printed in the cause list, no one filed vakalathnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and only during the course of hearing, Mrs. R. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel, represented on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 8. Heard Mr. F. Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mrs. R. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Substantial question of law No. 1: 9. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II was right in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000 instead of Rs. 30,000? A perusal of the records, especially the award, would reveal that though the Employee's Compensation Commissioner took Rs. 16,704 [Rs. 12,150 (405 x 30) as basic salary and Rs. 4,554 (151.80 x 30) as D.A.] as monthly income of the welder, as per GO (2D) No. 27, Labour and Employment (J1) Department, dated 18.6.2014 issued/by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, however, restricted the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 8,000 since Employee's Compensation Act restricts and fixes Rs. 8,000 as maximum monthly wages. As per section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the Central Government has to issue notification in the Official Gazette with regard to monthly wages in relation to any employee, as it may be considered necessary. The Employee's Compensation Act has been amended on 18.1.2010 and a notification has been issued on 18.1.2010 fixing the maximum wages at Rs. 8,000. The Employee's Compensation Act has been amended on 18.1.2010 and a notification has been issued on 18.1.2010 fixing the maximum wages at Rs. 8,000. Therefore, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner is left with no other option except to follow the notification issued by the Central Government and restricted the monthly wages of the deceased workman to Rs. 8,000. 10. Both the Employee's Compensation Act as well as Minimum Wages Act are beneficial legislations and they are intended to safeguard the interest of the weaker section, namely, workers. This court cannot mechanically adopt the amount which was notified about 8 years ago and prejudice the rights of the workers/employees or their dependants. It is the duty of the Central Government to re-determine the monthly wages under section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act and notify regularly. Invariably, every successive government does not notify or re-fix the monthly wages at regular intervals violating the rights of the employees. It is not known as to what the labour leaders are doing in this aspect. Similar is the case of the amounts fixed in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act which were determined in the year 1994. For the failure of lawmakers, the workers' interest should not suffer. Therefore, this court is duty-bound to re-determine the monthly wages adopting a pragmatic calculation. 11. Since the purchase power, earning power, inflation, standard of living vary year to year, the wages have to be revised every year. As already stated, the Employee's Compensation Act, though speaks about monthly salary as Rs. 8,000, taking note of the fact that the Government of Tamil Nadu has fixed the monthly wages of a welder at Rs. 16,704, as per GO (2D) No. 27, Labour and Employment (J1) Department, dated 18.6.2014 issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Central Act, 1948], this court adopts the said minimum wages and determines the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 16,704. The deceased was aged about 21 years as per Exh. P5, postmortem certificate and the corresponding relevant factor is 222.71. The loss of dependency would be 50 per cent x 222.71 x Rs. 16,704 = Rs. 18,60,073. Therefore, the question of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the appellants by re-fixing the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 16,704, increasing it from Rs. P5, postmortem certificate and the corresponding relevant factor is 222.71. The loss of dependency would be 50 per cent x 222.71 x Rs. 16,704 = Rs. 18,60,073. Therefore, the question of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the appellants by re-fixing the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 16,704, increasing it from Rs. 8,000 which was fixed by the Commissioner. 12. The reason for following the G.O. under the Minimum Wages Act issued by the State Government is that the Central Government notification issued in the year 2010 has neither been amended nor revised monthly wages. The Central Government is duty-bound to consider and revise the wages at least once in a year, as stated supra. Because of the failure on the part of the Central Government the rights of the workers should not be prejudiced/violated. Substantial question of law No. 2: 13. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II is right in not awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident excluding 30 days from the date of accident under section 4-A of the EC Act, while the award was passed on merits? As regards the question of law No. 2, i.e., the entitlement of 12 per cent interest from the date of accident excluding 30 days from the date of accident under section 4-A of Employee's Compensation Act, the Commissioner ought to have awarded interest at 12 per cent from the date of accident and ought not to have awarded interest at 12 per cent if the insurance company failed to pay the award amount within 30 days from the date of award. 14. Section 4-A of the Employee's Compensation Act reads as follows: "4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed." It is evident from section 4-A (1) of the Employee's Compensation Act that the compensation as per section 4 is payable as soon as it falls due, viz., the date of accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), rendered by the 4-Judge Bench and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), categorically held that the relevant date for determination of the compensation is the date of accident. Further, under section 4-A (3) (a) employer is liable to pay 12 per cent interest on the amount due, if the amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due. When that is the categorical provision, it is not understandable as to how the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, like many other Employee's Compensation Commissioners, as evident from many such awards being challenged before this court, awarded interest in case of default of the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount within a stipulated period. In the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that the statutory interest is payable from the date of accident and not from the date of award or from the date of filing of the petition. The relevant portions of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are extracted hereunder: (a) In the decision made in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), it has been held in para 8 as follows: "(8) It was the duty of the appellant, under section 4-A (1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-section (2) of section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no heed to the respondent's personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty." (b) In the decision made in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), it has been held in para 5 as follows: "(5) Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 ACJ 1048 (Kerala), 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 the 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 Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (supra), lays down the correct law and we approve it." (c) In the decision made in the case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 467 (SC), it has been held in para 12 as follows: "(12) In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the accident." (d) In the decision made in the case of Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 936 (SC), it has been held in para 15 as follows: "(15) The Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 6,42,921 (sic Rs. 3,25,365) along with 10 per cent penalty and 6 per cent interest per annum. As per section 4-A (3) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, where any employer commits default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government. As per section 4-A (3) (b), in addition to the amount of arrears and the interest thereon, the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay further sum not exceeding 50 per cent of such amount by way of penalty. The legal representatives of the deceased employee are thus entitled to the statutory interest at the rate of 12 per cent and penalty not exceeding 50 per cent of the amount of compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has awarded only 6 per cent interest and 10 per cent penalty as against the statutory entitlement of the dependants of the deceased employee in terms of section 4-A (3) of the Act. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has awarded only 6 per cent interest and 10 per cent penalty as against the statutory entitlement of the dependants of the deceased employee in terms of section 4-A (3) of the Act. Having regard to the passage of time and in the interest of justice, in our considered view, statutory rate of penalty, i.e., 15 per cent is to be ordered in addition to the statutory interest payable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum." (e) In the decision made in the case of Jaya Biswal v. Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd., 2016 ACJ 721 (SC), it has been held in para 26 as follows: "(26) Further, an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident, that is, 19.7.2011, is also payable to the appellants over the above awarded amount. In the light of unnecessary litigation and the hardship of the appellants in spending on litigation to get the compensation which was rightly due to them under the EC Act, we deem it fit to award the appellants costs as Rs. 25,000." In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, the appellants are entitled to 12 per cent interest from 8.8.2015, as the accident occurred on 8.8.2015. Thus, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the appellants. 15. The Commissioners for Employee's Compensation are duty-bound to apply their mind and deal with the cases in the light of the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are binding on this court as well as the authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. If any deviation has been made, it would amount to violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court. It is not as if the Commissioners for Employee's Compensation are laymen and they are coming across the judgments for the first time and they are incapable of understanding the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In spite of dealing with many cases, if the Commissioners for Employee's Compensation stereotypically and mechanically pass the award, contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court, with regard to the award of interest, it should be deemed as deliberate. 16. In spite of dealing with many cases, if the Commissioners for Employee's Compensation stereotypically and mechanically pass the award, contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court, with regard to the award of interest, it should be deemed as deliberate. 16. Because of non-granting of the interest as per the dictum of the Supreme Court, the workmen are compelled to approach this court by way of appeals, thereby increasing the pendency of cases before this court, apart from causing financial burden on the workmen, who are already injured and consequently, incapable of earning money. Therefore, the attitude of the Commissioners for Employee's compensation, in a nutshell, is against the public interest. Further, the justice delivery system is unnecessarily burdened because of the non-following of the judgments of the Supreme Court by the Commissioners for Employee's Compensation. 17. Mrs. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel who got instruction to represent the respondent No. 2-insurance company, would submit that the respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner and they filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and the same is pending before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner and she would seek remand of the matter. On the other hand, Mr. Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the said application has been filed by the respondent No. 2 with a delay of 118 days. 18. Section 25-A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, speaks about time limit for disposal of the case relating to compensation which is extracted as follows: "25-A. Time limit for disposal of cases relating to compensation.-The Commissioner shall dispose of the matter relating to compensation under this Act within a period of three months from the date of reference and intimate the decision in respect thereof within the said period to the employee." The accident occurred on 8.8.2015 and the petition for compensation before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner was filed on 5.9.2015. After service of notice on the respondent, conducting proper inquiry by examining PW 1 and based on the marked documents, especially Exh. P1-F.I.R., only on merits, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner held that the deceased died while working in the respondent No. 1-company. It is seen from Exh. After service of notice on the respondent, conducting proper inquiry by examining PW 1 and based on the marked documents, especially Exh. P1-F.I.R., only on merits, the Employee's Compensation Commissioner held that the deceased died while working in the respondent No. 1-company. It is seen from Exh. P1-F.I.R. that the accident occurred at 12.30 p.m. on 8.8.2015 and the same day at 8 p.m., the complaint was given stating that the deceased was staying and working as welder in the respondent No. 1-company. It is clear from the earliest document, viz., F.I.R. that deceased was working in the respondent No. 1-company and died during the course of employment. Therefore, the Commissioner passed the award only on merits considering the convincing evidence on record. The Commissioner did not pass the award mechanically, merely because the respondents were not present. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are before this court for enhancement and not the employer or insurance company. 19. When section 25-A of the Act speaks about the disposal of the case within three months from the date of reference, the respondent No. 2, which is an insurance company rendering public service, should have been vigilant enough to appear and conduct the case before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner promptly. Having received summons from the Commissioner and chosen not to contest the matter, it is not open to the respondent No. 2 to appear before this court, that too, in the appeal filed by the claimants to seek remand of the matter to the authority, contending that it is a liability issue. If it is a liability issue, the insurance company should have been careful enough to contest the case before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. In any event, the Commissioner based on both oral and documentary evidence factually found that the victim was employed by the respondent No. 1 and while working as welder the victim fell down and died due to injury sustained during the course of employment. 20. For failure to respond to the notice issued by the Commissioner and defend the interest of the company, the respondent No. 2 has to be imposed with heavy cost. However, in view of the fervent appeal made by Mrs. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, no amount is imposed as cost. 21. 20. For failure to respond to the notice issued by the Commissioner and defend the interest of the company, the respondent No. 2 has to be imposed with heavy cost. However, in view of the fervent appeal made by Mrs. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, no amount is imposed as cost. 21. Hence, this court directs: (a) The respondent No. 2-insurance company to deposit the compensation amount, viz., Rs. 18,60,073 [50 per cent x 222.71 x Rs. 16,704], as per the order passed by this court, along with interest at 12 per cent from the date of accident and not default, viz., failure to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the award. (b) The aforesaid amount has to be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the Commissioner is directed to transfer the same to the account of the appellants through RTGS, after getting the bank account details, within a period of one week thereafter. (c) The Employee's Compensation Commissioners are directed to award 12 per cent statutory interest on the award amount from the date of accident as per section 4-A of the Act and the judgments in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC); Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC); Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 467 (SC); Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 936 (SC) and Jaya Biswal v. Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd., 2016 ACJ 721 (SC). (d) Failure of the Employee's Compensation Commissioners to follow this order by awarding 12 per cent interest on the award amount from the date of accident would amount to 'contempt of court'. (e) The Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, shall issue circulars to the Employee's Compensation Commissioners, incorporating the directions given in this order to follow the same and sensitise them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a compliance report before this court. (e) The Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, shall issue circulars to the Employee's Compensation Commissioners, incorporating the directions given in this order to follow the same and sensitise them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a compliance report before this court. (f) In case of failure to award 12 per cent statutory interest from the date of accident and follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions and also the order made in this case, by the Employee's Compensation Commissioners, the parties are at liberty to maintain contempt petitions before this court. The substantial questions of law in the appeal are answered in the above manner in favour of the appellants/dependants of deceased employee and the appeal is kept pending for deciding the incidental important issues which arise from the facts of the case. 22. Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act reads as follows: "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 an from the injury : amount equal to fifty per cent. of the monthly wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more; (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury : an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the monthly wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more; (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury : an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the monthly wages of the injured [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more; [Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).] (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). (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), while fixing the amount of compensation payable to an employee in respect of an accident occurred outside India, the Commissioner shall take into account the amount of compensation, if any, awarded to such employee in accordance with the law of the country in which the accident occurred and shall reduce the amount fixed by him by the amount of compensation awarded to the employee in accordance with the law of that country. (1B) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. (1B) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. (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 (ii) after 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 employee is entitled the amount of any payment or allowance which the employee 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 employee before the accident exceeds half the amount of such wages which he is earning after the accident. xxx xxx xxx (2A) The employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment. (3) On the ceasing of the disablement before the date on which any half-monthly payment falls due there shall be payable in respect of that half-month a sum proportionate to the duration of the disablement in that half-month. (3) On the ceasing of the disablement before the date on which any half-monthly payment falls due there shall be payable in respect of that half-month a sum proportionate to the duration of the disablement in that half-month. (4) If the injury of the employee results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of not less than five thousand rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the employee towards the expenditure of the funeral of such employee or where the employee did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount specified in this sub-section." As per section 4 (1) (a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, when the death results due to the injuries sustained by the employee during the course of employment, an amount equal to 50 per cent of the monthly wages is deducted and only 50 per cent of the monthly wages is multiplied by the relevant factor for the purpose of determining the compensation. It is not clear on what basis 50 per cent deduction is made especially when only 1/3rd of the income is deducted from the monthly income of the victim towards personal expenses in the claims filed in motor accident cases and if the number of family members is more, accordingly the rate of deduction comes down. Similarly, under section 4 (1) (b) for the permanent total disablement 60 per cent of the wages alone is taken and multiplied by the relevant factor deducting 40 per cent, especially when the injured person is alive. It is not known on what basis and why 40 per cent deduction from the monthly income is made. 23. As already observed, under section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, the maximum wages of the workmen has been notified by the Central Government as Rs. 8,000 with effect from 18.1.2010. Thereafter, there is no revision or alteration of the amount fixed. Every year passes with rise in earning power, purchase power, inflation, increase in price and the standard of living is also improving. 8,000 with effect from 18.1.2010. Thereafter, there is no revision or alteration of the amount fixed. Every year passes with rise in earning power, purchase power, inflation, increase in price and the standard of living is also improving. When that is the position, the Central Government is duty-bound to safeguard the interest of the weaker section, namely, employees/workmen and issue notification raising/revising the wages regularly every year. 24. Furthermore, this court while dealing with the award passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J. Sathyamoorthi, 2010 (2) TN MAC 337, compared amounts under various headings under the Employee's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act and this court suggested/recommended to the Central Government to revamp the Employee's Compensation Act with regard to the award of compensation on a par with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Paras 26 and 27 of the said judgment are usefully extracted hereunder: "(26) Whereas in Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the disability is considered for the purpose of calculating the loss of income alone. Though the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are different, an injury sustained is always an injury and the pain suffered is pain with all its elements and there cannot be any difference whether the victim gets relief under Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act need to be revamped on a par with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with regard to awarding of amounts under other headings, viz., pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, damage to clothes and property, loss to estate, etc. (27) As already stated above, this court suggests/recommends that: (1) Restricting and fixing maximum monthly wages of workman at Rs. 4,000 under section 4(1) Explanation-II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is required to be reconsidered by way of amendment; (2) To revamp/amend Workmen's Compensation Act with regard to awarding of compensation on a par with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by addition of provision for awarding amounts towards pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of or damage to clothes and property, loss to estate, etc." 25. Though the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Though the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J. Sathyamoorthi, 2010 (2) TN MAC 337, was passed on 8.2.2010, even after more than eight years, no steps have been taken by the Central Government to revamp the Employee's Compensation Act with regard to the award of compensation on a par with Motor Vehicles Act, except provision for medical reimbursement amount and enhancement of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses. 26. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this court suo motu impleads (i) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and (ii) State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader, take notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 27. For the reasons stated in paras 17 to 21, incidentally in the interest of vast working force, the following queries are raised by this court to be answered by the Central Government by 3.12.2018: (1) Why 50 per cent deduction is being made irrespective of the number of dependants of the deceased employee, as per section 4 (1) (a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, especially when deduction for personal expenses from the wages/income is made according to the number of dependants ranging from 1/3rd to 1/5th of the wages/salary under the Motor Vehicles Act? (2) Why 40 per cent of the wages is deducted from the wages/income for an employee with permanent total disability under section 4(1) (b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, which deduction towards personal expenses is made under Motor Vehicles Act only in the case of death, especially when the injured is alive? (3) Why not the Central Government amend section 4 (1) (a) as well as 4 (1) (b) of Employee's Compensation Act in parity with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act? (4) Why not the Central Government revise/enhance the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 for death cases and Rs. (3) Why not the Central Government amend section 4 (1) (a) as well as 4 (1) (b) of Employee's Compensation Act in parity with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act? (4) Why not the Central Government revise/enhance the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 for death cases and Rs. 1,40,000 for the injured employees, as mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 4 of the Act, as fixed by Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.1.2010, as the said amounts are very meagre and negligible as cost of living, inflation and earning power increase every year? (5) Why the Central Government has not made any revision in 'monthly wages' as per section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 after 18.1.2010 by which time, the wages had been fixed as Rs. 8,000 in view of the change in cost of living index? (6) When will the Central Government revise the quantum of 'monthly wages' of the workmen from Rs. 8,000 as fixed by the notification dated 18.1.2010 under section 4 (1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act? (7) Why not the Central Government remove the notified ceiling on 'monthly wages' being fixed as per section 4 (1B) of the Act? (8) Why not introduce a provision in the Act to revise the 'wages' mandatorily every year, as the monthly wages, as per the Act, is not raised/revised for years together affecting crores of employees? (9) Why not the Central Government revise the monthly wages every year, taking into consideration the increase in prices? (10) If not, why not the Employee's Compensation Commissioners be permitted to follow the minimum wages fixed by the respective State Governments, in case the minimum wage amount fixed by the Central Government is lower than the one fixed by the respective State Government? (11) Why the suggestion made by this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J. Sathyamoorthi, 2010 (2) TN MAC 337, to revamp/amend the Employee's Compensation Act with regard to the awarding of compensation on a par with Motor Vehicles Act for addition or revision of awarding amount towards pain and suffering, loss or damage to clothes and property and loss to estate was not implemented so far, though it was made as early as on 8.2.2010? (12) If no steps are taken, when the suggestions given by this court in Sathyamoorthi's case would be considered and accordingly, the amendment would be made in the Employee's Compensation Act? Call the matter on 3.12.2018 for response of the newly impleaded respondents and for passing further orders.