Partly allowed

Gulab Singh v. Partner/Manager, and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2026FAO/1854/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the court modified an award by correcting the wage ceiling applied to compensation calculation and increasing the interest rate. The court also upheld the reliance on an unchallenged disability certificate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.21,995 to Rs.52,788; interest rate modified to 12% per annum.

Gulab Singh Vs Partner/Manager… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1854 of 1997 (O&M)

GULAB SINGH

…Appellant

PARTNER/MANAGER, CHHATAR CHEMIC ALS (PRIVATE) LIMTED. AND ANR. …Respondents

¶9

1	The date w hen thejudgment was reserved	09.07.2026
2	The date w hen thejudgment ispronounce d	24.07.2026
3	The date w hen thejudgment is uploaded o n the website	24.07.2026
4	Whether o pronounce nly operative part of the judgme d or whether the fulljudgment i nt is spronounced	Full
5	The delay judgment, , if any, of the pronouncement o and reasons thereof. f full	Not applicable

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶11

Present: Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advoca t e for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Co m pany. ****

¶13

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

¶14

1. Th e present appeal under Section 3 0 of the Workmen's Compensa t ion Act, 1923 (for short, "the Act"), has been p r eferred by the claimant-appel l ant assailing the a w ard dated 01.04.1997 , passed b y the learned Commissioner u n der the Workmen's Compensation Act, Karnal, w h ereby compensation to the tun e of Rs.21,995/- , along with interest @6% per annu m , penalty amounting to 50% of the compensation a n d costs of Rs.1,000/-, came to be awarded on account of inju r ies sustained by th e appellant during the course of h is employment. 2. Bri e fly stating, the appellant was e m ployed as a mechanic/mistry w ith respondent No.1. On 20.06.1995 , while repa i ring the gear box of a statio n ary machine, the foreman of respondent No.1 ina d vertently started the machine, a s a

¶15

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

¶17

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶18

consequence w h ereof both the legs of the app e llant got entangled in the chai n of the machine an d suffered grievous crush injurie s . He remained under treatment a nd ultimately suff e red 20% permanent disability, duly certified by the compe t ent medical practit i oner. The employer admitted the relationship of employer a nd employee as w e ll as the occurrence of the acc i dent arising out of and during the course of employment, but sought to shift t h e liability upon respondent N o .2Insurance Com p any on the ground that the est a blishment was duly insured u n der the provisions of the Act.

¶19

3. Up o n appreciation of the pleadin g s and evidence led by the par t ies, the learned Co m missioner held that the acciden t arose out of and during the co u rse of employmen t and that the appellant su f fered 20% permanent disabi l ity. Consequently, c ompensation of Rs.21,995/- w a s awarded by taking the mon t hly wages at Rs.1, 0 00/- and applying fifty per cen t thereof, besides awarding inte r est @6% per ann u m and penalty. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶20

4. Le a rned counsel appearing on be h alf of the appellant contended t hat the learned Co m missioner committed manifest e rrors in law while determining the quantum of co m pensation. It was argued that the award came to be passed on 01.04.1997, m uch after the amendment carried out in the Workm e n's Compensation Act with effect from 15.09.1995. Consequently, the amen d ed provisions oug h t to have been applied while c o mputing compensation. He fur t her contended that t he Commissioner erroneously a d opted fifty per cent of the mon t hly wages for com p uting compensation, whereas i n cases of permanent disablem e nt, compensation i s required to be calculated by t a king sixty per cent of the mon t hly

¶21

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

¶23

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶24

wages. It was a lso submitted that the learne d Commissioner erred in awar d ing interest @6% p er annum despite the amended provisions prescribing inte r est @12% per ann u m.

¶25

5. Pe r contra, learned counsel appea r ing on behalf of respondent N o .2Insurance Com p any supported the impugned a w ard to the extent it determined the percentage of d i sability and the liability of the i nsurer. However, it was conten d ed that the disabili t y certificate relied upon by the a ppellant could not have been a c ted upon in the a b sence of examination of the doctor who had issued the s aid certificate. Acc o rding to the learned counsel, since the author of the disab i lity certificate was n ot examined, the disability ass e ssed therein could not be treate d as proved in acco r dance with law. It was, thus, a rgued that the appellant faile d to establish the ex t ent of permanent disability by l e ading cogent medical evidence.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for t he parties and perused the pa p erbook of the cas e .

¶27

7. At the outset, it deserves to be noti c ed that the finding recorded by the learned Commi s sioner with regard to the occur r ence of the accident having ar i sen out of and in th e course of the appellant's empl o yment is not under challenge a nd, therefore, has a t tained finality. However, lear n ed counsel appearing on behal f of respondent No.2 has questioned the finding relating to the appellant ha v ing suffered 20% p ermanent disability by contending that the disability certifi c ate could not have b een relied upon in the absenc e of examination of the doctor w ho issued the same . The aforesaid contention deser v es to be rejected.

¶28

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

¶30

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶31

7.1 A perusa l of the impugned award reveals that the learned Commissioner has recorded a cat e gorical finding that the appel l ant had suffered 20% permanent disability on th e basis of the disability certifi c ate (Ex.B-1) issued by a quali f ied medical practitioner. Significantly, the disa b ility certificate was tendered in evidence witho u t any objection from either o f the respondents. Neither in the written stateme n t nor during the course of pr o ceedings was the genuinenes s or correctness of t he disability certificate specifi c ally disputed. Equally, no req u est was made by t h e respondents for referring the appellant to any Medical Boar d or for obtaining a f resh medical opinion. The resp o ndents also did not choose to lead any medical ev i dence in rebuttal to demonstrat e that the disability assessed by the treating doctor w as either exaggerated or erron e ous. Furthermore, it is well set t led that proceeding s under the Employees' Compe n sation Act are summary in na t ure and are intended to provide expeditious relief to an injured workman. T he Commissioner i s not bound by the strict rules o f evidence applicable to civil s u its and is required to adjudicate the claim on t h e touchstone of preponderanc e of probabilities, k e eping in view the beneficial o b ject of the legislation. A disab i lity certificate issue d by a qualified medical practi t ioner, which remains substanti a lly unchallenged a n d unrebutted, constitutes a val i d piece of evidence and canno t be discarded mere l y because its author was not examined, particularly when the opposite party n either objected to its exhibition nor sought to discredit the sam e by leading any co n trary medical evidence. In Golla Rajanna and others v. Divisional

¶32

Manager and another, (2017) 1 SCC 45 , it wa s held that the Commissioner is the final authority o n appreciation of evidence an d findings recorded on the basi s of material availa b le on record ordinarily do not w arrant interference unless show n to be perverse or based on no evidence.

¶33

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶34

¶35

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶36

7.2 In the present case, once the di s ability certificate was admitte d in evidence witho u t objection and no attempt wa s made by the respondents eithe r to summon the m e dical practitioner for cross-ex a mination or to produce any ex p ert medical eviden c e in rebuttal, the objection soug h t to be raised at the appellate stage loses all signifi c ance. The Insurance Compan y cannot be permitted to challe n ge the evidentiary value of the disability certifica t e after having failed to disput e its genuineness be f ore the learned Commissioner. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in th e finding recorded by the lea r ned Commissioner accepting the appellant's per m anent disability at 20% , and th e contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Com p any is accordingly rejected.

¶37

8. Fu r ther, the impugned award reveals that while asses s ing compensation, t he learned Commissioner ado p ted the statutory wage ceilin g of Rs.1,000/- and proceeded to calculate comp e nsation by taking fifty per c ent thereof. In the considered opinion of this C o urt, the said approach cannot be sustained. The l earned Commissioner passed t h e impugned award on 01.04.1997 , by which time t he amendments introduced in the Workmen's Compensation A ct enhancing the w age ceiling for computation o f compensation had already c o me into force. Co n sequently, the computation o u ght to have been undertaken by applying the a m ended statutory provisions. T h e aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-09 of 1996 ti t led

¶38

as New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.K Neelakandan and others,

¶39

decided on 06.11.1996 has held that where adj u dication under the Act takes p l ace after enforce m ent of the amendment, the amended provisions gover n ing computation of compensation and payment of i n terest are liable to be applied. T he legislative obje c t behind the amendment being beneficial in nature, the provisions

¶40

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶41

¶42

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶43

deserve to rec e ive a liberal construction so a s to advance the purpose of the enactment and to secure just compensation t o the injured workman. Rele v ant paragraph there o f is reproduced hereunder:-

¶44

“3. I t is not disputed that Section 4 o f the Act was amended in 199 5 by Am e ndment Act 30 where-unde r the deemed income has b een incr e ased from Rs 1000 to Rs 200 0. Learned counsel for the Insur a nce Co m pany has vehemently contende d that since the accident took p l ace in t h e year 1981, the law operatin g on that date is applicable an d as suc h the heirs of the workmen ar e not entitled to the benefit o f the ame n dment. We do not agree with t he learned counsel. We are fi na lly det er mining the rights of the wor k men today. The Act is a sp ec ial legi s lation for the benefit of the lab o ur. Keeping in view the schem e of the A ct we are of the view that t he only interpretation which ca n be giv en to the amendment is that if any benefit is conferred on the wor k men and the said benefit is av a ilable on the date when the ca se is fina l ly adjudicated, the said benefit s hould be extended to the work m en. We, therefore, hold that the compe n sation to be paid to the heirs o f the wor k men has to be calculated on t he basis of the actual wages - Rs 180 0 - drawn by them. Learned cou n sel for the Insurance Company has wor k ed out the amount to be paid t o the heirs taking the monthly w ag es to b e Rs 1800. The details are as un d er:

¶45

W orkmen Amount awarded by th e Commissioner Amount wo rk ed o u t taking monthly wages of R s 1800 as per the amended Ac t as d i rected by this Hon'ble Cour t (Rupees) (Rupees) 1. Gane sh an 8 9 ,600.00-2,16,000.00-2. Smt J a nki 84,716.00-1,90,611.00-3. S mt P u shpa 89,084.00-2,00,439.00-4. P.T Babu 90,552.00-2,03,742.0 0 -5. S m t Usha 91,416.00-2,05,6 8 6.00-6. Pradeepan 91,416 . 002, 0 5,686.00”

¶46

8.1 In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the approach adopte d by the learned Co m missioner in applying the un a mended statutory wage ceilin g of

¶47

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶48

¶49

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶50

Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of computation of c ompensation cannot be sustai n ed. Since the imp u gned award came to be pas s ed on 01.04.1997 , i.e. after the amendment en h ancing the wage ceiling had c ome into force, the compensa t ion ought to have been determined by taking the a m ended wage ceiling of Rs.2,000/- . The learned Co m missioner, therefore, fell in er r or in computing the compensa t ion on the basis of t h e pre-amended provisions of t h e Act.

¶51

9. A p art therefrom, the Commissio n er has also committed an erro r in applying fifty per cent of the monthly wages w hile determining compensation. In cases involving permanent disablement, compensation is required to be comp u ted by taking sixty per cent of the monthly wages , subject to the relevant fa c tor prescribed in Schedule IV and the percentag e of loss of earning capacity. T he adoption of fi ft y per cent by the Commissi o ner has resulted in an erroneous determination o f compensation and has materially prejudiced the appellant.

¶52

10. In the p resent case, the appellant was 23 years of age on the date of the accident. As p e r Schedule IV to the Workm e n's Compensation Act, 1923, the relevant factor applicable to a workman ag e d 23 years is 219.95 . Since the applicable statutory monthly wage for the pur p ose of computation is Rs.2,000/- , sixty per cent t h ereof comes to Rs.1,200/- . Ap p lying the relevant factor of 219.95 , the total comp e nsation works out to Rs.2,63,940/- (Rs.1,200 × 219.95). As the appellant suffer e d 20% loss of earning capacity , he is entitled to compensatio n to the extent of 20% of Rs.2,63,940/-, i.e. Rs.52,788/- . Accordingly, the compensation p a yable to the appellant is reasse s sed at Rs.52,788/- .

¶53

11. Th e learned Commissioner has als o awarded interest @6% per an n um on the compens a tion amount. The said directio n is equally unsustainable. By vi r tue

¶54

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶55

¶56

FAO NO.1854 OF 1997 (O&M)

¶57

of the amendm e nt introduced through Act 30 o f 1995, which came into force w ith effect from 15. 0 9.1995, Section 4A(3) of the A ct mandates payment of intere s t at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maxi m um lending rate of any scheduled bank, as m ay be specified by the Ce n tral Government, w h ere the employer defaults in d epositing the compensation wi t hin one month fro m the date it fell due. Since the impugned award came to be pa s sed after the aforesaid amendment had come into force, the appellant is entitle d to interest in term s of the amended provisions. T h e Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K. Neelakandan’s case (supra) has categorically h eld that where the claim is fin a lly adjudicated af t er the amendment, the ame n ded provisions governing b oth computation of compensation and payment o f interest are liable to be appl i ed. Consequently, t he award of interest @6% per annum cannot be sustained a nd deserves to be m odified to 12% per annum .

¶58

12. Re s ultantly, the present appeal is allowed . The impugned award d a ted 01.04.1997 , p a ssed by the learned Com m issioner under the Workm e n's Compensation A ct, Karnal, is modified to the e x tent that the compensation pay a ble to the appellant is enhanced from Rs.21,995/- to Rs.52,788/- . The appellant s h all further be entitl e d to interest on the aforesaid a m ount at the rate of 12% per annum in accordance w ith Section 4A(3) of the Wo r kmen's Compensation Act, 1 9 23, payable from the date of expiry of 30 days fro m the date of accident till the dat e of its actual realiz a tion. The direction regarding pe n alty, as contained in the impug n ed award, shall re m ain unaltered. The respondent - Insurance Company is directe d to deposit the enh a nced amount of compensation together with the accrued inte r est before the lear n ed Commissioner within a peri o d of eight weeks from the dat e of receipt of a cer t ified copy of this judgment, fa i ling which the amount shall c a rry