BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.325 of 2001 P.Ramaraj .. Appellant Vs. 1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Unit-I, Tamilnadu, Chennai. 2.The Branch Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Unit-I, Tamilnadu, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.C. of Labour Office, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 27.11.2000, passed in W.C.No.45 of 1999, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.John Britto ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.Thilak Kumar for R1 and R2 Mr.So.Paramasivam Government Advocate for R3 :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
27.11.2000, passed in W.C.No.45 of 1999, on the file of the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Animadverting upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower
authority the appellant/claimant filed this appeal on various grounds, the gist
and kernel of it would run thus:
The lower authority awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.77,351/-, slashing
down the monthly wages of the injured to Rs.2,000/-, even though he was earning
a sum of Rs.5,533.65 as evidenced by Ex.P.6.
4. The substantial question of law for consideration is as to whether the
lower authority correctly fixed the compensation by choosing the monthly wages
at Rs.2,000/-?
5. Substantial Question of law: The learned counsel for the appellant
drawing the attention of this Court to Section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation Act,
would develop her argument to the effect that Rs.4,000/- minimum wages is
contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, when the wages of the
injured/claimant is above Rs.4,000/- p.m. Whereas the learned counsel for the
Transport Corporation would convincingly and correctly, properly and appositely
has argued that such a position as put forth by the learned counsel appellant
may not be applied to the occurrence which took place during the 1998.
6. By virtue of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act 46 of 2000,
which came to vogue w.e.f. 08.12.2000 the minimum wages contemplated is
Rs.4,000/-, if the workmen was earning above Rs.4,000/- per month. Whereas the
accident took place in the year 1998, in such a case the then prevailing rate of
Rs.2,000/- alone should be taken into consideration as it had been correctly
taken by the lower authority for assessing the compensation. The said amendment
is not having retrospective effect and it is obvious that no more elaboration is
required in this regard. Unless the amendment legislation clearly contemplates
that the particular amendment is having retrospective effect the question of giving
retrospective effect to such amendments cannot be countenanced. Hence, there is
no infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the
substantial question of law is answered to the effect that the lower authority
correctly fixed the compensation by taking the monthly wages at Rs.2,000/-.
7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the compensation awarded by
the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is confirmed. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation,
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Tirunelveli.