Rajiv Sharma and Anil Kumar, JJ. - (1.) LIST is being revised. In spite of names of Mr. Rajendra Jaiswal and Mr. Shiv Kant Tiwari, have been printed in the cause list as counsel for the respondents, neither they are present to press the appeal nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case. Heard Mr. Rajesh Nath, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THROUGH this first appeal from order under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Faizabad in Case No. WC/04/2003, whereby a compensation of Rs. 4,19,840 has been awarded and the appellant has been directed to pay the same within one month, failing which 12 per cent interest would be payable. Admitted facts which are necessary to be noted are that the workman (Sarwar Husain Khan alias Sarwar Khan) was employed by Rashid Ali, respondent No. 7, as a driver. On 24.10.1997 while on duty and driving truck bearing No. UP 78-B 1774, in respect whereof respondent No. 7 had obtained an insurance cover from the appellant, workman was murdered by some criminal falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station, Panki, Kanpur Dehat. The workman was aged 29 years at the time of the accident and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4,000 per month. Thereafter, Abdul Sattar Khan, respondent No. 1, who is said to be legal heir of the workman filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as 'court below' for the sake of brevity). Appellant was impleaded as a respondent being the insurer of the truck. The court below vide order dated 28.1.2005 allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 4,19,840 as compensation to the respondent No. 1. It has also directed to pay the awarded amount within one month, failing which 12 per cent interest would be payable by the appellant. Against the order dated 28.1.2005, the appellant has preferred the instant first appeal from order, inter alia, on the ground that the court below has erred in law while calculating the compensation amount on the basis of Rs. 4,000 as wages of the deceased.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has overlooked the Explanation II of the provisions of section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which clearly provides that where the monthly wages of a workman exceed Rs. 1,000, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be Rs. 1,000 only. He submits that the said provision was substituted by Act 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 and again by Act 46 of 2000 w.e.f. 8.12.2000 and as such, the compensation amount is required to be calculated on monthly wages of the deceased workman as Rs. 2,000 per month and on this figure, the amount of compensation comes to the tune of (Rs. 2,000 x 209.92) = Rs. 2,09,920 only. Therefore, the calculation has wrongly been drawn. In order to resolve the controversy, it is relevant to produce Explanation II of section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. After substituting the Act by Act 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995, the Explanation II of section 4 reads as under: "Explanation II.-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed two thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be two thousand rupees only;" After substituting the Act 30 of 1995 by Act 46 of 2000 w.e.f. 8.12.2000, the Explanation II of section 4 reads as under: "Explanation II.-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only;" ;