JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.204 of 2020 filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to set aside the award in W.C.No.55 of 2013 dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem insofar as awarding minimum amount of Rs.2,64,870/- as compensation and further to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to the accident occurred during and in the course of employment under the Respondent Mill. Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2523 of 2017 filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to set aside the award in W.C.No.55 of 2013 dated 15.02.2016 (received by the appellants on 15.03.2016) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act), Salem.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 2. There are two appeals. Mr.S.Palanivel has filed C.M.A.No.204 of 2020 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,64,870/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. On the other hand, aggrieved by the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.55 of 2013 dated 15.2.2016, the Management/Administrator of Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills has filed C.M.A.No.2523 of 2017 to set aside the award, on the ground that the injured-Mr.S.Palanivel is not covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but he has been covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, both these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the Injured” and “the Management” in this judgment. 3. Mr.A.Nagarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the Injured contended that when Mr.S.Palanivel was discharging his duties with care and devotion with the opposite party, namely, Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, Salem, on 23.7.95, when he was working in the drawing machine, due to the defective switch and defective machine, an accident took place, as a result his right hand index finger got crushed. Immediately he was rushed to the local hospital and in spite of the treatment, his right hand index finger was amputated. Due to the same, he sustained permanent functional disability and also suffered loss of earning capacity, in view of the above accident that took place during the course of his employment with the Management. Immediately he was rushed to the local hospital and in spite of the treatment, his right hand index finger was amputated. Due to the same, he sustained permanent functional disability and also suffered loss of earning capacity, in view of the above accident that took place during the course of his employment with the Management. In the claim petition, the Injured further pleaded that when he sustained injuries during the course of employment, the Management has referred him to the Regional Medical Board and the said Regional Medical Board, on examination, has declared on 1.2.2002 that the Injured is not fit for the job. Moreover, on 4.2.2002, the Regional Medical Board had also issued a Medical Invalidation Certificate certifying that the Injured became unfit and permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained in the accident that has arisen out of and in the course of his employment with the opposite party. It has been also mentioned that the monthly wages of the Injured was Rs.3,900/- and therefore he is claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Injured further submitted that when Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 clearly disqualifies the Injured from claiming any amount under the provisions of the said Act, as his wages on the relevant date exceeded Rs.3,000/-, the appeal filed by the Management stating that the amount of compensation claimed under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be granted and the Injured should be made to apply again under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, is far from acceptance. Referring to Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the learned counsel further argued that under the said provision, if any person so employed receives a monthly remuneration exceeding Rs.3,000/-, he cannot be included as a person entitled to get the benefit of the Employees' State Insurance Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel also referred to and relied upon Ex.A1 dated 25.11.96 issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation regional office stating that the Injured is not entitled to get the benefit of the said Act because of receiving more than Rs.3,000/- as the monthly wages. On this basis, the learned counsel for the Injured contended that the appeal filed by the Management is liable to fail. 5. On this basis, the learned counsel for the Injured contended that the appeal filed by the Management is liable to fail. 5. Again pressing the prayer for enhancement of compensation, the learned counsel submitted that when the Injured was paid Rs.4,400/- per month as wages prior to the accident, since that evidence was not available on the date of filing the claim petition, he had wrongly mentioned it as Rs.3,900/-, therefore, he pleaded that the application filed in C.M.P.No.8185 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.204 of 2020 for receiving the additional documents, namely, (i) salary slip issued for the month of December, 1999, (ii) approval petition filed in August, 2002 by the respondent Mill, (iii) demand draft dated 31.8.2002 issued in favour of the appellant/petitioner, be taken on record. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that when the Regional Medical Officer has issued a medical invalidation certificate approving that the Injured sustained injuries during the course of his employment and in view of the loss of right hand index finger, the Injured became unfit for the job, that evidence shows that he has sustained functional disability. If Rs.4,400/- is taken on record, Rs.3,10,103/- would be the right calculation, instead of Rs.2,64,870/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. On this basis, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the Injured in C.M.A.No.204 of 2020, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Management in C.M.A.No.2523 of 2017. 6. Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Management submitted that as per Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the Injured-Mr.S.Palanivel, having been covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, can claim compensation only under the said Act, but the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has failed to consider the evidence let in by the Management on this aspect. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Adding further, he contended that when the Injured was duly covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, his claim petition should not have been allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in view of the statutory bar under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Adding further, he contended that when the Injured was duly covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, his claim petition should not have been allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in view of the statutory bar under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. He also submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem had taken the percentage of functional disability at 53% without any tangible and acceptable evidence, more particularly, when he has offered his willingness to work in the cooperative spinning mill even after the accident. That evidence again indicates that there is no permanent disability caused to him. When the conclusion reached by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem under the Workmen's Compensation Act holding that the Injured sustained functional disability of 53% as per the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, is wrong, the appeal filed by the Management in C.M.A.No.2523 of 2017 has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award. 7. This Court is unable to find any merit on the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the Management. The reason being that it is an admitted case of both parties that when Mr.S.Palanivel, the appellant in C.M.A.No.204 of 2020 was working in the Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills, on 23.7.95, while he was discharging his duties with due care and attention in the drawing machine, the accident took place, as a result his right hand index finger got crushed. Therefore, he was immediately taken to the local hospital, but in spite of the treatment, his right hand index finger was amputated. Hence, he made a claim that he sustained permanent functional disability resulting in loss of earning capacity and that the accident occurred during and in the course of his employment with the opposite party. The counter affidavit filed by the Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills also admits the fact that the claimant sustained injuries when he was working in the drawing machine on 23.7.95 and he was also taken to the local hospital for treatment. However, his right hand index finger was amputated, as it got crushed. The counter affidavit filed by the Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills also admits the fact that the claimant sustained injuries when he was working in the drawing machine on 23.7.95 and he was also taken to the local hospital for treatment. However, his right hand index finger was amputated, as it got crushed. Supporting the above admitted fact, the Regional Medical Board also issued a medical invalidation certificate certifying that the Injured claimant became unfit for the job, because he became permanently disabled due to the accidental injuries sustained during the course of employment with the opposite party. When the Management also categorically admitted the fact that Mr.S.Palanivel sustained injuries while he was working with the drawing machine in their premises, finally, his right hand index finger got amputated, as it got crushed, it goes without saying that the invalidation certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board showing that the Injured sustained permanent disability, needs to be accepted. 8. Now coming to the question of award of compensation, it is proper to refer to Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, which reads as follows:- “53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law...An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.” 9. A reading of Section 53 clearly shows that the injured person or his dependant shall not be entitled to receive, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of an employment injury sustained by the injured person under the Act, whereas Section 2(9)(b), which reads as follows, “2. Definitions..--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (9) 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and ..... Definitions..--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (9) 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and ..... (b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed rupees three thousand....”, clearly shows that any person so employed whose wages exceeds Rs.3,000/- is not entitled to any compensation under the said Act. But in the present case, on the date of accident, the Injured has been paid with Rs.4,400/- per month as wages. The pay order issued by the Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills dated 31.8.2002 clearly shows that the Injured was admittedly paid Rs.4,400/- on the date of accident. As it was not made available, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has accepted Rs.3,900/- as his monthly wages. Therefore, his claim has been rightly accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem under the Workmen's Compensation Act holding that his monthly remuneration was Rs.3,900/-, as against the pay order. On the basis of the medical invalidation certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board dated 4.2.2002, the Injured was already declared to be unfit for the job. That shows that he has sustained permanent functional disability. Therefore, the amount of compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem at Rs.2,64,870/- is enhanced to Rs.3,10,103/-. Since the Management of Salem Cooperative Spinning Mills has already deposited the award amount before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, they are further directed to deposit the balance amount along with 12% interest from the date of accident within a period of four weeks and the Injured claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount thereafter. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.204 of 2020 stands allowed to the enhanced amount indicated above and the C.M.A.No.2523 of 2017 stands dismissed. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, C.M.P.No.8185 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.204 of 2020 filed for receipt of three additional documents, namely, (i) salary slip issued for the month of December, 1999, (ii) approval petition filed in August, 2002 by the respondent Mill, (iii) demand draft dated 31.8.2002 issued in favour of the appellant/petitioner, is ordered as prayed for and the same are taken on file as Exs.P10, P11 & P12, respectively. No costs.