Legal Reference Library

Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras, in Thilagavathi v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Ors., has upheld an order awarding a part of compensation paid for the death of an industrial worker to the parents of the deceased. Justice S. Vaidyanathan observed, “The respondent has clearly stated that since the children of the deceased have completed 18 years of age and attained majority, there is a bar under the provisions of the Act to treat them as dependants of the deceased employee.Moreover, this Court finds nothing wrong in adding the parents of the deceased as dependants, as it was rightly contended by the 1st respondent that under Section 2(1) (d)(iii)(b) of the Act, it has been mentioned as “a parent other than a widowed mother. The case related to the death of one Subramaniyan who, while working as machine operator at Sakthi Sugar Mills in Sivagangai, died due to injuries suffered in the course of employment. Based on a claim petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen Com...

The Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna vs. The Divisional Manager, has held that the high court cannot reassess the percentage of disability recorded by a Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner as it is a pure question of fact and the scope of the appeal before the high court under Section 30 of the workmen’s compensation Act is only to substantial questions of law. Re-appreciating the evidence recorded by the Commissioner, the high court held that the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of the whole body, resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity. On appeal, a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman observed that under the scheme of the Act, being a welfare legislation, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts and scope of the appeal is restricted only to substantial questions of law. Setting aside the high court judgment, the court observed: “Unfortunately, the high court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdict...

Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the Acts. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta has dismissed an Appeal filed by Dalbir Lal who already got the compensation under Motor Accidents Claims who approached the Court seeking further compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act for the reason that he met an accident when he had already left his Office and was in the way to reach his home. Dismissing the Appeal the Court held that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates in so many words regarding claims for compensation of a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the A...