REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO

Vs

RAJESH HELMANDGE

2001(89) FLR 959

[HC-AP-SJ]

2001(3) LLN 909 [HC-AP-SJ]

1

IN CASE OF NON-SCHEDULES INJURIES CAN COMMISSIONER DECIDE EXTENT OF LOSS IN EARNING CAPACITY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MEDICAL OFFICER WHO ISSUE THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE?

1

2

COMMISSIONER CANNOT DECIDE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

THE MEDICAL OFFICER MUST BE EXAMINED AND ONLY THEN CAN THE EXTENT OF LOSS IN EARNING CAPACITY BE DECIDED

2

PRASANTA KUMAR

MATHI

Vs

MD ORISA MINING

CORPN

2001 (II)LLJ 77[HC-ORI DB]

1

2

 3

A TRUCK DRIVER MET WITH ACCIDENT AND WC COMMISSIONER ASSESSED 35% INJURY AND AWARDED COMPNESATION

INSURANCE COMPANY CHALLENGED IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DRIVER WAS DOING HIS EARLIER JOB WITHOUT LOSS IN EARNINGS AND CONTENTED THAT NO COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE

IS COMPENSATION PAYABLE?

1

AS THE DRIVER HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS IN EARNINGS EVEN AFTER INJURY, NO COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE

3

GANGWANI AND  COMPANY

Vs

SMT SARASWATI

MANIRAM

2001(30 LLN 498 [HC BOM 3 BENCH]

2001 (2) LLJ 1023 [HC BOM 3 BENCH]

2001 (90) LR 1100

1

2

SECTION 23 OF THE ACT STATES THAT COMMISSIONERS SHALL HAVE POWERS OF CIVIL COURT.

HAVE WC COMMISSIONER ALL TH EPOWERS AND ROLE OF A CIVIL COURT ?

1

2

 

3

WC COMMISSIONER THOUGH VESTED WITH SOME POWERS OF A CIVIL COURT ARENOT FULL-FLEDGED CIVIL COURTS.

THEY ARE TRIBUNALS CONSTITUTED UNDER SPECIAL ENACTMENTS AND TREATED ONLY AS DEEMED COURTS WITH TRAPPINGS OF THE ROLE OF CIVIL COURTS.

FULL CIVIL COURTS ARE CREATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARRYING OUT CIVIL JUSTICE, WHERE AS TRIBUNAL/COMMISSIONS ARE CREATURES OF SOCIAL STATUTES FOR PERFORMING LIMITED ROLES OUTLINED IN THE SPECIAL STATUTES.

4

K RATHINAM

Vs

APPOLO ENTERPRISES

2001(3) LLN 1183

[HC-MAD-SB]

1

2

   
3

4

HOSPITAL HAD ENGAGED A CONTRACTOR FDOR BUILDING ADDITIONAL FLOORS

WHILE HE WAS ON HIS WAY FOR TEA HE FOUND THAT TWO HOSPITAL STAFF HAD FALLEN INTO A WELL.

HE WITHOUT BEING ASKED TODO ANY RESCUE OPERATION JUMPED INTO THE WELL AND SUSTAINED FATAL INJURIES

IS HOSPITAL LIABLE UNDER WC ACT?

1

2

   
3

EMPLOYER CANNOT BE MADE RESPONSIBLE AS HE HAD NOT CALLED UPON TH EDECEASED TO DO ANY RESCUE WORK NOR WAS THE RESCUE WORK FOR SAVING ANY OF THE CONTRACTORS WORKMEN

THE EMPLOYEE TOOK UPON HIMSELF THE ADDED PERIL

PRINCIPAL  EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ACT.

5

AMARCHAND

LALCHAND SHINGAVI

Vs

SMT SHARADA LAXMI PAWAR

[2002(90) FLR 639 HC BOM SB]

1

2

A FARM LABOUR WHILE TRAVELLING IN A BULLOCK CART OF THE EMPLOYER FELL OFF AND SUSTAINED INJURY

IS HE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE WC ACT 1923?

1

   

2

3

4

TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION THE PERSON SUFFERING INJURY MUST FALL WITHIN TH EDEFINITION OF WORKMANUNDER SECTION 2 (N) READ WITH SCHEDULE-II.

ITEM (XXIX)OF SCHEDULE-II READS AS FOLLOWS:

EMPLOYED IN FARMING BY TRACTORS OR OTHER CONTRIVANCES DRIVEN BY STEAM OR OTHER MECHANICAL POWER OR BY ELECTRICITY

SINCE BULLOCK CART DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE  ABOVE ITEM IN SCHEDULE-II INJURED WORKER NOT ELEIGIBLE.

[NOTE:SINCE THIS TECHNICAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION BEFORE WC COMMISSIONER, THE HIGH COURT DID NOT DISTURB THE ORDER OF COMPENSATION BY COMMISSIONER]

6

KUTTAPPAN

Vs

KESHAVAN

[2001(90)FLR 1139 HC-KER-DB]

1

2

ARE CASUAL WORKMEN MEETING WITH ACCIDENT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER THE WC ACT 1923?

EMPLOYER CONTENTED THAT CASUAL WORKMEN ARE NOT ELIGIBLE

1

2

3

4

TO BE ELIGIBLE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF WORKMAN]SN.2(N)WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

WORKMAN MEANS ANY PERSON (OTHER THAN A PERSON WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS OF A CASUAL NATURE AND WHO IS EMPLOYED OTHERWISE THAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYERS BUSINESS) WHO IS

FOR A PERSON TO BE MADE NOT ELIGIBLE HE HAS TO BE SHOWN TO BE SATISFYING BOTH THE EXCLUDING CRITERIA IN THE DEFINITION.

IF ONLY ONE OF THE EXCLUSIONS ARE MET THE WORKER WOULD BE ELEIGIBLE.

IN THIS CASE THOUGH CASUAL HE WAS DEPLOYED FOR EMPLOYERS BUSINESS.

NOTE: THE WC ACT WAS AMENDED WEF 8.12.2000 AND THE STIPULATION EXCLUDING CAUSAL WORKMEN IN SECTION2(N)HAS BEEN DELETED

7

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs ABDUL MAJID

[2001(91)FLR  I HC KAR SB]

1

CAN  THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER ORDER PAYMENT OF 100% COMPENSATION WHEN EXTENT OF DISABILITY CERTIFIED BY THE MEDCIAL AUTHORITIES IS ONLY 20%

1

UNLESS THERE IS OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD [OVER AND ABOVE THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE],THE COURT CANNOT ORDER OR ASSESS THE DAMAGES PAYABLE AS 100% WHEN THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS DISABILITY OF ONLY 20%

8

KUNJOONJAM MA DANIELO

Vs

KERALA STATE ELE. BOARD

2001(4)LLN 383 [HC-KER-DB]

1

2

DOES A WORKING CONTRACTOR [A CONTRACTOR WHO HIMSELF DOES THE WORK OF A CONTRACT] COME UNDER SECTION2(N)TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ACCIDENT COMPENSATION?

ARE CASUAL LABOUR EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER SN2(N)

1

2

3

A  SELF WORKING CONTRACTOR THOUGH A CONTRACTOR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ACCIDENT COMPENSATION.

THE DEFINITION OF WORKMAN UNDER SECTION 2(N) DOES NOT EXCLUDE ALL CASUAL WORKERS.IT EXCLUDES ONLY CASUAL WORKMEN EMPLOYED FOR WORK OTHERWISE THAN FOR THE WORK OF THE EMPLOYERS TRADE OR BUSINESS.

CASUAL WORKMEN EMPLOYED FOR WORK IN CONNECTION WITH TRADE OR BUSINESS OF EMPLOYER WILL STAND COVERED.

9

MALANKARA RUBBER CO

Vs

HAMEED & OTHERS

2001 (4) LLN 373 [HC-KER-DB]

1

2

3

ACCORDING TO DEFINITION OF WORKMAN [SN 2(N) CASUAL WORKMEN ARE ELEIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION IF  THEY WERE DEPLOYED ON JOBS CONNECTED WITH EMPLOYERS TRADE OR BUSINESS.

THE WORKERS MET WITHAN ACCIDENT WHILE DOING THE JOB OF ERECTING A STRUCTURE CLOSE TO THE EXISTING FACTORY.

MANAGEMENT CONTENDED THE JOB WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH EMPLOYERS TRADE OR BUSINESS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION

1

THE EXPANSION OF FACTORY BUILDING WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE FACTORIES BUSINESS AND HECNE WORKMAN ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION.

10

JT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

Vs

SMT BV SUVARNA]

2001(91) FLR 839 HC-KAR SB

1

CAN A CLERICAL CADRE PERSON OR SCHOOL TRACHER CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER WC ACT 1923?

1

2

3

4

A COMBINED READING OF THE DEFINITION OF WORKMAN[SN2(N) UNDER THE ACT WITH SCHEDULE-II WOULD IMPLY THAT ONLY SUCH OF THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PUT ON MANUAL AND SKILLED ACTIVITIES IN THE ENUMERATED TRADES AND AVOCATIONS ALONE ARE TREATED AS WORKMENUNDER THE ACT.

PERSONS EMPLOYED AS TEACHERS OR IN CLERICAL CAPACITY ALTHOUTH ASSOCIATED  WITH TRADES OR  AVOCATIONS MENTIONED IN  THE  DEFINITION  ARE  EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITIONAL NET OF A WORKMAN

IMPARTING OF EDUCATION OR RUNNING OF SCHOOLS ARE NOT ENUMERATED IN SCHEDULE-II NOR FALL UNDER DEFINITION OF WORKMEN.

NOT ELIGIBLE.

11

MOHAMMED

Vs

COCHIN PORT TRUST

2001(4) LLN 553 HC-KER DB

1

   

2

3

THE COMPANY PAID AN AMOUNT OF  RS.17,356/- TOWARDS TEMPORARY DISABLEMENT AND BASED ON THE EXTENT OF DISABLEMENT WORKMAN WAS AWARDED PERMANENT; PARTIAL DISABLEMENT COMPENSATION OF RS.12,833/-

COMPANY TOOK THE STAND THAT THE TEMPORARY DISABLEMENT AMOUNT OF RS.17,356/-INCLUDED THE PPD AMOUNT OF RS.12,833/- AND DEMANDED REFUND OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT PAID.

IS THE STAND OF THE COMPANY IN ORDER.?

1

THE TWO BENEFITS [TDR & PPD] ARE MUTUALLY EXLUSIVE AND INJURED WORKMAN IS ELIGIBLE FOR BOTH COMPENSATIONS UNDER WC ACT 1923.

12

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM

Vs

MOHAMMED

2002(1)LLJ 922 [HC-KER-DB]

1

2

3

4

THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION AND RATE OF INTEREST WERE ENHANCED VIDE THE 1995 AMENDMENT

WORKMEN MET WITH ACCIDENT BEFORE AMENDMENT BUT COMMISSIOER ORDER WAS AFTER AMEDMENT.

WORKMEN CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF COMPNESATION ANDHIGHER RATE OF INTEREST.

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THOUGH SHOWED ONLY 24% LOSS COMMISSIONER ORDERED 100% COMPENSATION.

1

2

ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST AND PRE-REVISED COMPENSATION RATES THAT IS RATE APPLICABLE ON ACCIDENT DATE.

IF INJURY FALLS  STRICTLY WITHIN  INJURIES LISTED IN SCHEDULE-1, COMMISSIONER CANNOT AWARD HIGHER COMPENSATION THAT LISTED IN SCHEDULE