Partly allowed

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban v. Chuni Lal

J&K HC1 Aug 2023MA/720/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The J&K High Court partly allowed an appeal against a labour commissioner's award. The court recalculated compensation payable for a 1998 accident, limiting the wage base to Rs. 2,000 as per the law on that date, resulting in a total award of Rs. 2,48,059 with 12% interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; compensation recalculated to Rs. 2,48,059 plus 12% interest.

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban Vs Chuni Lal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | J&K HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 14 AT JAMMU

¶2

MA No. 720/2010(O&M)

¶3

Divisional Manager, JKSFC, Ramban

¶4

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. Vipin Gandotra, Adv.

Chuni Lal

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Adv.

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

ORAL

¶13

This appeal arises out of the award dated 27.09.2010 passed by the

¶14

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kishtwar (for short ‘the Commissioner’), whereby the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,49,600/- inclusive of interest amounting to Rs. 1,46,300/-, to the respondent. Mr. Vipin Gandotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner was not correct in determining the compensation payable by the appellant on the basis of the monthly wage of respondent as Rs. 4,000/-, as the accident took place in the year 1998 whereas the amendment in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now ‘The Employees Compensation, Act, 1923’) enhancing the monthly wages from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/- was made on 08.12.2000.

¶15

¶16

MA No. 720/2010

¶17

1. Mr. Koshal Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the submissions made by Mr. Gandotra.

¶18

1. Since this appeal is filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, as such, the same can be entertained only provided the substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Though the appellant has not framed any proposed substantial question of law in the appeal but taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Vipan Gandotra, the following substantial question of law arises:

¶19

Whether the Commissioner was right in considering the monthly income of the injured as Rs. 4,000/when on the relevant date of accident, the maximum limit of monthly wages as provided by section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-.

¶20

1. Since the issue involved is purely legal, so there is no requirement for going in depth of the facts of the case except to the extent that the accident took place on 23.07.1998. On the relevant date, the upper limit of the monthly wages was Rs. 2,000/. The Commissioner could not have considered the monthly wages of the respondent as Rs. 4,000/, once the upper limit was Rs. 2,000/

¶21

1. This is also admitted case that the claimant was 28 years of age at the time of accident and the other factual aspects have not been disputed by the appellant. The loss of earning capacity in the present case is 40%. Taking into consideration the monthly wages of the respondent as Rs. 2,000/-, the total compensation payable to respondent comes around to Rs. 1,01,659/- and thereafter, 12% interest instead of 6%, is also to be paid till the deposit of the amount in the office of the Commissioner

¶22

¶23

MA No. 720/2010

¶24

which comes to Rs. 1,46,388.96 (round to 1,46,400/-) so the total amount payable to the respondent comes to Rs. 2,48,059/-.

¶25

1. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The aforesaid amount determined by this Court payable to the respondent be released in his favour after proper identification of the respondent by his engaged counsel. The balance amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant. Needless to say that both the parties shall also be entitled to respective interest accrued if any, as by virtue of order dated 29.11.2010, the whole of the amount was directed to be kept in FDR.

¶26

1. Record received in original, be returned back to the office of the Commissioner.

¶27

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 01.08.2023 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban v. Chuni Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban v. Chuni Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atam Singh Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Home Deptt and Ors.

Kuldeep Raj Vs the State Th. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms)

Mohd.Safeel Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Sabita Abrol and Others ( Lr of Late Sh.Shiv Dass) Vs Rajat Sharma and Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs Arjun Singh and Ors.

K.B.Jayamma and Ors. Vs Virender Singh and Ors.