Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Smt.Shobha And Anr on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:997
MFA No. 202054 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202054 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, RAICHUR,
BUS NO.KA-36/F-1511, SINDHNUR DEPOT,
(REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O LATE RAJSHEKAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SMT. BASAMMA W/O SHARNAPPA,
Digitally
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.13
10:52:12 - BOTH ARE R/O KUNNEKALLUR VILLAGE,
0800
TQ. LINGSUGURU, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
MFA AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2019 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT LINGASUGUR IN ECA
NO.03/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
CLAIM PETITION AGAINST THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:997
MFA No. 202054 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
The substantial question of law that has been framed
by this Court reads as below:
"Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the
liability to an extent of Rs.22,08,228/- upon the
appellant by considering the income of the
deceased-Rajashekhar as Rs.20,853/- per month
and if not, to what relief?"
2. The factual background of the case is that on
21.03.2018 the deceased-Rajashekhar, was working as a
driver under the appellant-Corporation and while he was
proceeding towards Sindhanur by driving the bus
No.KA-36/T-1511, there was a collision with the lorry
bearing No.KA-41/A-6993 and due to the accident he
succumbed to the injuries.
3. The dependents of the deceased approached
the learned Commissioner under the provisions of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:997
Employees Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as
'E.C.Act' for short), seeking compensation.
4. The learned Commissioner, after perusing the
evidence placed on the record, which is in the form of the
pay slip issued by the appellant herein, came to the
conclusion that the wages of the deceased was to the
extent of Rs.20,853/- per month and awarded a
compensation of Rs.22,08,228/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
respondent-employer Corporation is before this Court in
this present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Corporation submits that the learned
Commissioner should have taken the wages of the
deceased as per the notification issued by the Government
of India under Section 4 (1-B) of the E.C. Act, but on the
other hand the Commissioner has accepted the wages as
per the pay slip at Ex.P-13 and therefore, the impugned
judgment is not sustainable in law.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:997
7. He submits that the provisions of Section
4 (1-B) of the E.C. Act, is mandatory in nature and
therefore, the Commissioner could not have taken the
income at Rs.20,853/- as monthly income.
8. A careful perusal of Section 4 of the E.C. Act,
discloses that the Central Government may issue a
notification under Section 4 (1-B) of the E.C. Act, in which
case the wages are to be taken at Rs.8000/- per month, in
the absence of any cogent evidence. It is to be observed
that, wherever the wages of the workmen employed by
various employers is abysmally low and is not in
accordance with the provisions of the minimum wages Act,
the notification issued under Section 4 (1-B) will have the
relevance. If the actual wages is more than the wages
notified under section 4 (1-B) there is no bar to consider
such wages for the purpose of calculation of the
compensation. Therefore, when the objectives of the
provisions of the E.C. Act, particularly Section 4 (1-B) of
the Act, is appreciated, it is evident that there is no
NC: 2025:KHC-K:997
mandate to the learned Commissioner to consider the
wages fixed under Section 4 (1-B) of the E.C. Act, only.
The Commissioner is at liberty to consider the higher
wages, if there is evidence to that effect. Under these
circumstances, the substantial question of law raised has
to be answered in the affirmative. The learned
Commissioner was justified in considering the income of
the deceased-Rajashekhar at Rs.20,853/- per month and
thereby in awarding the sum of Rs.22,08,228/-. Hence the
appeal is bereft of any merits and as such, the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
TMP
CT: AK
