1

MAR THEMOTHEOUS PRESS

Vs

SANTHOSH RAJ

2001(I) LLJ 2000

[KER-HC-DB]

WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE W.C.COMMISSIONERS IN DETERMINING EXTENT OF LOSS IN EARNING CAPACITY

1

2

IN CASE OF INJURIES FALLING STRICTLY UNDER THE SCHEDULE-I  HE SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE PERCENTAGES FIXED IN THE SCHEDULE ITSELF.

FOR INJURIES FALLING OUTSIDE THE SCHEDULE HE MUST BE GUIDED BY THE OPINION OF MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SHOULD CALLED AND EXAMINED

2

HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD

Vs

MOIDUTTY

2001(I)LLJ 52

[HC-KER-DB]

1

2

A WORKER REGISTERED UNDER THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS ACT WAS SENT TO AN ESTABLISHMENT FOR WORK, WHERE HE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT

IS THE ESTABLISH-MENT OWNER OR THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION UNDER W.C.ACT ?

AS PER PARA 25 IN CHAPTER VI OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS ACT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE HEAD LOAD COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE ALL BENEFITS TO REGISTERED HEAD LOAD WORKERS ARISING OUT OF STATUTORY ENACTMENTS. THEREFORE THE HEAD LOAD COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE WORKER IS REGISTERED AND NOT THAT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT TO WHICH HE WAS DEPUTED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION

3

SASIDHARAN v

Vs

STATE OF KERALA

2001(88)FLR 835

 [HC-KER]

1

2

HAS THE W.C.COMMISSIONER DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTEREST IS TO BE LEVIED FOR DELAYED DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT

IS INTEREST PAYABLE FROM DATE OF ACCIDENT OR DATE OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER ?

1

2

3

PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4-A(3) IN 1995, THE W.C.COMMISSIONERS HAD DIS-CRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER INTEREST IS TO BE LEVIED OR NOT

AFTER THE AMENDMENT THE DISCRETION HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY AND ORDERING INTEREST PAYMENT AT 12% HAS BEEN MADE OBLIGATORY

THE INTEREST IS TO BE COMPUTED FROM  DATE OF ACCIDENT AND NOT FROM DATE OF AWARD OF COMPENSAION.

4

UNITED INDIA INS.CO.

Vs

SMT RUDRAMMA

2001(89)FLR-64

[HC-KAR]

1

2

CAN THE MARRIED SISTER OF A BACHELOR WORKMAN KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT CLAIM DEATH COMPENSATION

IS THE W.C.COMMI-SSIONER REQUIRED TO REFUND THE COMPENSATION TO THE EMPLOYER, IF THERE ARE NO VALID DEPENDENTS.

1

2

A MARRIED SISTER WHOSE HUSBAND IS ALIVE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEATH BENEFIT AS THE DEPENDENT  OF HER DECEASED BROTHER

IN CASE THERE ARE NO PERSONS SATISFYING THE DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT UNDER SECTION 2(d) OF THE ACT THE W.C.COMMI-SSIONER IS REQUIRED TO REFUND THE DEPOSITED AMOUNT TO THE EMPLOYER.

5

SUNIL INDUSTRIES

 Vs

RAMCHANDER PRADHAN AND OTHERS

[2000 (87) FLR 931 SC]

CAN AN EMPLOYER DENY COMPENSATION TO AN INJURED WORKER ON THE GROUNDS THAT HIS MANUFACTURING PROCESS/PREMISES DOES NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'FACTORY' UNDER SECTION 2 (m) OF THE FACTORIES ACT 1948 ?

1

 2

3

A JOINT READING OF SECTION 2 (n)(II) AND ITEM 2 OF SCHEDULE II OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT 1923 AND SECTIONS 2(k) AND 2(m) OF THE FACTORIES ACT WOULD REVEAL THAT THE W.C.ACT DOES NOT INSIST THAT THE ACCIDENT SHOULD HAPPEN IN A 'FACTORY' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(m) OF THE FACTORIES ACT 1948.

THE W.C.ACT 1923 ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE INJURED PERSON MUST NOT BE ON A CLERICAL JOB AND MUST BE WORKING ON A MANU-FACTURING PROCESS.

WORKERS IN 'NON-FACTORY' MANUFACTURING PROCESSES ALSO ENTITLED TO CLAIM UNDER W.C.ACT 1923.