Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4 – Whether the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 deleting the deeming provision in Explanation II which capped the monthly wages of an employee at Rs.4000 would also apply to accidents which took place prior to the coming into force of its provisions i.e. 18 January 2010 – Held: The objective of the amendment by virtue of Act 45 of 2009 is to remove a deeming cap on the monthly income of an employee and extend to them compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages drawn by them – However, there is nothing in Act 45 of 2009 either express or implied to indicate that the Legislature intended for the benefit to extend to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment – The relevant date for the determination of compensation payable is the date of the accident and the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force – Workman Compensation Amendment Act (No.45 of 2009).
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: Object of enactment – The 1923 Act is a social beneficial legislation and its provisions and amendments thereto must be interpreted in a manner so as to not deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation – The object of enacting the Act of 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits – Legislation – Social beneficial legislation. Workman Compensation Amendment Act (No.45 of 2009): Object of amendment – Held: Prior to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of the deeming provision in Explanation II to s.4, the monthly wages of an employee were capped at Rs 4000 even where an employee was able to prove the payment of a monthly wage in excess of Rs 4,000 – The legislature, in its wisdom and keeping in mind the purpose of the 1923 Act as a social welfare legislation deleted it altogether – The objective of the amendment is to remove a deeming cap on the monthly income of an employee and extend to them compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages drawn by them.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The object of enacting the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits. Prior to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of the deeming provision in Explanation II to Section 4, the monthly wages of an employee were capped at Rs. 4000 even where an employee was able to prove the payment of a monthly wage in excess of Rs. 4,000. The legislature, in its wisdom and keeping in mind the purpose of the 1923 Act as a social welfare legislation did not enhance the quantum in the deeming provision, but deleted it altogether. [Paras 25, 26][494C-F]
2. Though amendments enhancing the compensation payable under the 1923 Act confer a benefit upon employees, a corresponding burden is imposed on employers to pay a higher rate of compensation. There is nothing in Act 45 of 2009, either express or implied, to denote an intention of the legislature to confer the benefit of the amendment to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force. The relevant date for the determination of compensation payable is the date of the accident and the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force. In the present case, the accident occurred on 31 January 2008 i.e. prior to the coming into force of Act 45 of 2009. Consequently, the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 to the present case. [Paras 28, 32, 33][496-B-C; 499-C-D]
3. The employer duly proved the monthly pay certificate indicating that the deceased was drawing a monthly wage of Rs. 32,000, including expenses towards food. Significantly, no appeal was filed by the respondents against the judgment of the High Court enhancing the compensation. In view of this, the award of compensation ordered by the High Court is not interfered with in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 34][499-E-F]
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 : [1976] 2 SCR 872; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K (1999) 8 SCC 254 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 657 – followed.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Neelakandan Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-09 of 1996; National Insurance Co Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 2 SCC
349 : [2007] 2 SCR 117; Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George (2012) 12 SCC 540 : [2012] 6 SCR 1079; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1 : [2014] 12 SCR 1037; Rathi Menon v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 : [2001] 2 SCR 365; Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019)
3 SCC 572 : [2018] 4 SCR 417; Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur (2019) 12 SCC 387; Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 372 : [2009] 10 SCR 70; Kalandi and Mohamadi v. Union of India. (2019)
12 SCC 389; Union of India v Radha Yadav (2019) 3 SCC 410 : [2019] 1 SCR 741 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.