Page No.# 1/7 vs Must. Monowara Begum And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 4740 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Must. Monowara Begum And Anr on 21 August, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010040342023




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:11147
                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : MFA/13/2023

            RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND
            HIRACHAD MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND ONE OF ITS
            BRANCH OFFICE, AT G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI.

            VERSUS

            MUST. MONOWARA BEGUM and ANR,
            W/O LATE INTAJ ALI @ ANTAJ ALI, R/O VILL. BALIGAON, P.O. LALPOOL,
            P.S. DALGAON, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.

            2:JAGADISH SINGH S/O LATE ASHA SINGH
             R/O 8 DM ROAD KOLKATA 700023 WEST BENGAL

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS L SHARMA, MR.K K BHATTA,MR.J JOHN,MR.K K
BHATTACHARYYA

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,MR.M ISLAM(R-1),MR.M DUTTA(R-1)

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

Date of hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Judgment: 21.08.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)

Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/ claimant.

Page No.# 2/7

2. The instant appeal, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923(formerly known as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923), has been preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment & order, dated 02-07-2014, passed by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. MWC-01/2010, whereby, a compensation of Rs. 6,11,180/-, was granted to the respondent No. 1/claimant. The award includes granting Rs. 6,000/-, as the monthly salary of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/-, as funeral expenses, in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal, is that the husband of the respondent, herein, while employed as a permanent labourer of a truck bearing Registration No. NL-01/0372, met with a motor accident on 10-09-2009 and died in the same accident. The respondent's wife i.e. the appellant, herein, having 4(four) minor children and no other source of income, filed a petition under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-.

4. The case of the applicant i.e. respondent No. 1/claimant, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was that her deceased husband was earning Rs. 6,000/-, per month, as monthly salary and besides the above amount, he also earned an agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/-, annually. The Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, upon consideration of the evidence, accepted the monthly salary of the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant, as Rs. 6,000/-, per Page No.# 3/7

month, and awarded the compensation, accordingly. In addition to the above amount; an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses. The total compensation amount, so awarded by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, was Rs. 6,11,180/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment & order, dated 02-07- 2014, passed by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. MWC-01/2010; the appellant Insurance, at the outset, has contended that on the date of accident, i.e., 10-09-2009, the statutory wage ceiling prescribed under the provisions of Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, as per Notification No. GSR-30(E), dated 31-01-2000, was Rs. 4,000/-, per month, only. Therefore, the enhanced ceiling of Rs. 6,000/-, per month, as notified, subsequently; cannot be applied retrospectively under the provisions of Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

6. Mr. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, at the outset, has contended that the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, had erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/-, towards funeral expenses of the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant, herein, when, only an amount of Rs. 2,500/-, was permissible under the then prevailing provisions of law.

7. Mr. Bhatta, learned counsel, in this connection, has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siby George & ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC Page No.# 4/7

540, wherein, it has been held that the amendment to the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, enhancing the monthly wage ceiling and funeral expenses; cannot be applied retrospectively to accidents occurring prior to the amendment of the said Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

8. Mr. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1/claimant, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment & order, dated 02-07-2014, passed by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation (formerly, known as Workmen's Compensation), Darrang, Mangaldai, by contending that the award, in question, is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has further contended that the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, has rightly taken into account, the existing circumstances of the family at the relevant point of time and had passed the judgment & order, impugned in the present proceeding; for securing the end and interest of justice.

9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

10. It is not disputed that the accident, in question, occurred on 10-09- 2009. As per the unamended provisions of Section 4, Explanation(ii) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923; the monthly salary of a workman, was statutorily fixed at Rs. 4,000/-. The subsequent enhancement of the ceiling amount to Rs. 6,000/-, as monthly salary of a workman, was notified only, thereafter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siby George(supra), has categorically held that such amendments which effect Page No.# 5/7

substantive rights, cannot be applied retrospectively unless specifically provided by the legislature.

11. In the case on hand, it appears that the Labour Officer-cum- Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, had, therefore, erred in calculating the compensation amount by taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- instead of restricting to Rs. 4,000/-.

12. At this stage, Mr. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, has fairly submitted that although the amount prescribed towards the funeral expenses, was Rs. 2,500/-, however, there was no maximum limit prescribed under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, for such expenses, and as such, the learned counsel has submitted that he was not pressing the matter on this count.

13. In view of the above; the award of Rs. 15,000/-, as compensation towards funeral expenses, so passed by the Labour Officer-cum- Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, in its judgment & order, dated 02-07-2014, does not call for any interference from this Court.

14. For the reasons stated-above; the impugned judgment & order, dated 02-07-2014, passed by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. MWC-01/2010, to the extent, it calculates the compensation of the monthly salary of the Page No.# 6/7

deceased husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant on the basis of Rs. 6,000/- per month, is liable to be modified.

15. In that view of the matter; the compensation amount of Rs. 6,000/-, per month, awarded by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, vide the judgment & order, dated 02- 07-2014, towards the monthly salary of the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant, is required to be re-calculated by taking the same as Rs. 4,000/-, per month.

16. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment & order, dated, 02-07-2014, passed by the Labour Officer-cum- Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

17. However, the rest of the order including award on funeral expenses and liability of the employers and the insurer, and the interest granted; remains undisturbed.

18. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the modified compensation amount after adjustment of the amount already paid, if any, by it before the Office of the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

19. The Office of the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Page No.# 7/7

Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, shall, thereafter, release the amount, in question, to the respondent No. 1/claimant, herein, in accordance with law.

20. With the above directions and observations; the instant appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.

21. Remit the connected Trial Court records to the Office of the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Darrang, Mangaldai, forthwith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant