Madras High Court
Subbulakshmi vs The Management Of Muthu Spinning Mills ... on 24 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.24 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.24 of 2017
Subbulakshmi. ...
Appellant
(Minor/appellant declared as major and guardianship of her mother
is discharged vide order dated 12.07.2021
in C.M.P(MD)No.925 of 2017)
vs.
1.The Management of Muthu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
Manavasi Post,
Karur.
2.The Secretary to the Labour Department
State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort,
Chennai – 5.
3.The Commissioner of Labour,
DMS, Teynampet,
Chennai. ...
Respondents
[R2 & R3 are suo moto impleaded vide order dated 24.01.2017 &
30.01.2017 in C.M.A.(MD)No.24 of 2017]
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 01.08.2000
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD) No.24 of 2017
in W.C.Application.No.166 of 1999 on the file of the Deputy
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Triuchirappali.
For appellant : Mr.D.Boopal
For Respondents
for R1 : Mr.G.Mohankumar
for R2 & R3: Mr.V.Omprakash
Government Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
The claimant before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act has preferred the above appeal seeking enhancement of
the compensation.
2. Since the liability of the respondent to pay the compensation is
not under challenge, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are
not necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Commissioner, while determining the compensation, had fixed the income
at Rs.1,200/- p.m., which is very low and hence, prayed for enhancement.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, per contra,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted that the commissioner had fixed the income correctly in the
absence of any evidence on record and therefore, no interference is called
for.
4. The following substantial question of law arises in the above
appeal:
'Whether the salary determined by the
Commissioner at Rs.1,200/- p.m. in the absence of any
evidence on the salary of the appellant, is in
accordance with law?'
5. Though the appellant challenges the finding of the Commissioner
fixing disability at 44%, the said finding, being factual in nature, cannot
be set aside in the absence of any substantial question of law that arises in
this regard. However, this Court finds that the claimant, in her evidence
adduced before the Commissioner, had established that she was earning at
Rs.2,500/- p.m. The respondent had not produced any contra evidence. In
the light of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant, the
Commissioner ought not to have assumed that the income would be at Rs.
1,200/- p.m. and rendered the finding in that regard. The said finding is
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perverse.
6. The accident took place on 22.11.1998. By virtue of the
explanation II to Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, if
the monthly income exceeds Rs.2,000/- it must be deemed to be Rs.
2,000/- at relevant time. Therefore, the compensation has to be 60/100 x
2000 x 44/100 (disability) x 228.54 (factor) = Rs.1,20,669/-.
7. It is represented by the learned counsel for the first respondent
that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner at Rs.72,401/- has
already been deposited as early as on 16.11.2000.
8. Hence, the respondent is directed to deposit the balance amount
of Rs.42,268/- (Rs.1,20,669/- - Rs.72,401/-) with interest at 12% p.a.
from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit along with the
interest for the earlier deposited amount within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. On such deposit, the claimant/appellant shall be permitted to
withdraw the compensation, along with interest, less the amount already
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Commissioner.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
24.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
Triuchirappali.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN,J
apd
24.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
