JUDGMENT
S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Rupnagar, dated 5th January 1989 whereby Vidya Devi and her two minor son and daughter were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 24000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till actual payment. All the aforesaid petitioners, were to receive the said compensation in equal shares and the shares of the minors were further directed to be deposited in fixed deposits in their names and the said amount was not to be withdrawn, nor any loan could be raised against the said deposits till the minor-claimants attained their age of majority.
2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that Mansha Ram was employed as a workman at Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project as a Dumper Operator, by the authorities in charge of the said Project. He was drawing Rs. 1251- as pay when on 6th June 1983 at about 2.00 A.M. while on duty in connection with his aforesaid employment with the Hydel Project authorities he met with an accident, which proved fatal. The widow and the minor children of the deceased have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 73,516.62 together with penalty equivalent to 50% of the amount of compensation. Prayer was also made for grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment. It was further pleaded that their claim was kept pending and was declined on 31st March 1986 on the ground that Mansha Ram could not be treated as Workman just because of subsequent revision of pay scales his pay was fixed at Rs. 1084.70 in order to take away benefits, which had already accrued to the said claimants.
3. This petition was contested on behalf of the employer and the State of Punjab on the ground that the monthly wages of Mansha Ram deceased exceeded Rs. 1000/-. As such he was not covered by the definition of a workman under Section 2(h) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The objections concerning maintainability of the petition, jurisdiction of the court and limitation were also raised. On merits, it was admitted that Mansha Ram was working as a Dumper Operator, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project, met with an accident on 6th June 1983 while on duty resulting in his death. It was, however, pleaded that the said accident took place due to the negligence of Mansha Ram, who touched the electric wire and the employer was not liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
4. The claimants in their re-joinder denied the averments in the written-statement and reiterated those in the main petition. In order to dispose of this case the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal framed the following issues:–
1. Whether Mansha Ram deceased was a workman felling within the definition as given in the Workmen’s Compensation Act? OPP.
2. Whether Mansha Ram died during the course of his employment of the respondents? OPP.
3. Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of Mansha Ram? OPP.
4. Whether the compensation petition is within limitation? OPP.
5. Whether the petition is not maintainable for reasons that Mansha Ram was drawing monthly salary more than Rs. 1,000/- as alleged? OPR.
6. Whether this Court as Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition? OPR.
7. Whether the petitioners are entitled to amount of compensation? If so, how much? OPP.
8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount by way of penalty? If so, how much? OPP.
9. Relief:
Issues Nos. 1 to 7 were decided in favour of the claimants whereas issue No. 8 was decided against them. As a result of the said findings compensation was awarded to the extent indicated above.
5. Counsel for the parties were heard.
6. On behalf of the State, it was mainly contended that since Mansha Ram deceased was getting monthly wages exceeding Rs. 1,000/- he was not covered by the definition of workman under Section 2(h) of the Act. This argument is devoid of any merit. The liability of the employer arises as soon as the injury is caused and not at any subsequent occasion. Provisions of Section 19 which provide a machinery for settlement of the claim by the Commissioner does not have the effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay the compensation till after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. It is duty of the employer to pay compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman, in view of the authority in case Pratab Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, (1976-I-LLJ-235).
7. Admittedly, the accident resulting in the death of Mansha Ram, Dumper Operator took place on 6th June 1983. Thus, the material date on which the wages of the deceased are to be considered would be the date of his death referred to above, There is ample evidence on the record that at time of his death Mansha Ram deceased was getting wages which did not exceed Rs. 1000/- per month, However, as a result of subsequent revision in wages of Mansha Ram his wages exceeded Rs. 1,000/- per month. Mansha Ram was an ad hoc employee. It is obvious that the revision of pay of the deceased in the instant case has been made with an ulterior motive to escape the liability for payment of compensation under the Act. Since the provisions of the Act are meant for the benefit of the workers these have to be construed in that light and the said provisions cannot be permitted to be set at naught by revision of pay scale with retrospective effect by the employers.
8. Even otherwise the employer instead of giving adequate compensation to the dependents of the deceased, have gone out of the way to escape the liability of payment in respect of the claim of the worker, who died while he was oh duty in the course of his employment. The other argument raised by the State counsel that the accident took place because of the negligence of Mansha Ram because he touched the electric wire is also without any merit. Normally no individual would touch the electric wire just for the fun of it. It is obvious that while the petitioner as a Dumper Operator was on duty and was doing his job in the early hours of the morning of 6th June 1983 he accidentally touched the wire and died. Hence, his dependents cannot be deprived of compensation under the Act.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 500/-.