HC Doubles Compensation to Disabled Labourer Removed From Service

Hyderabad: Justice M.G. Priyadarshini of the Telangana High Court disposing of a civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by a labourer under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 highlighted its limited scope, warranting interference only in cases where the order passed by the commissioner is perverse or when there is patent irregularity or illegality committed. The judge further ruled that when two interpretations are possible, the interpretation, which is favourable to the claimant, shall be taken into consideration, since the Workmen’s Compensation Act (now Employees’ Compensation Act) is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect the interest of employees. Two appeals were filed by an employee and the labour commissioner challenging the award of employee’s compensation and deputy commissioner for labour at Nizamabad. The petitioner filed an application under the Act claiming compensation of Rs four lakh. He stated that he was employed as a labourer on a lorry that was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. The vehicle met with an accident in October 2004 leaving the applicant permanently disabled because of which he was removed from employment. The applicant claiming to be earning Rs 4,000 per month filed the application seeking compensation of Rs four lakh. The deputy commissioner after considering the evidence on record awarded him Rs 1,78,338. The court rejected the contention raised by the insurance company that the policy does not cover the risk of labourers in view of non-payment of additional premium by the insured employer. It relied on the rulings of the apex court to hold that, statutorily, the employees of the insured such as driver, conductor and ticket collector, who are carried in the goods carriage, are covered to the extent of the liability under the Act without payment of additional premium. It also held that where the policy mentions "a policy for Act Liability" or "Act Liability", the liability of the insurance company qua the employees would not be unlimited but would be limited to that arising under the Workmen's Act. The court altered the findings of the commissioner so far as the salary of the applicant was concerned and pegged it at Rs 4,000 per month. The court also held that the applicant was entitled for interest at 12 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the accident. The order passed by the commissioner for employees compensation and deputy commissioner for labour at Nizamabad was modified by the court to enhance the compensation from Rs 1,78,338 to Rs 3,07,414.