K SIVARAMAN & ORS. versus P SATHISHKUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 13-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
K SIVARAMAN & ORS.
v.
P SATHISHKUMAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9046 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4 – Whether the benefit
of Act 45 of 2009 deleting the deeming provision in Explanation II
which capped the monthly wages of an employee at Rs.4000 would
also apply to accidents which took place prior to the coming into
force of its provisions i.e. 18 January 2010 – Held: The objective
of the amendment by virtue of Act 45 of 2009 is to remove a deeming
cap on the monthly income of an employee and extend to them
compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages drawn by
them – However, there is nothing in Act 45 of 2009 either express or
implied to indicate that the Legislature intended for the benefit to
extend to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of
the amendment – The relevant date for the determination of
compensation payable is the date of the accident and the benefit of
Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to
its coming into force – Workman Compensation Amendment Act
(No.45 of 2009).
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: Object of enactment –
The 1923 Act is a social beneficial legislation and its provisions
and amendments thereto must be interpreted in a manner so as to
not deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation – The
object of enacting the Act of 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship
of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work,
or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker
machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits –
Legislation – Social beneficial legislation.
Workman Compensation Amendment Act (No.45 of 2009):
Object of amendment – Held: Prior to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of
the deeming provision in Explanation II to s.4, the monthly wages
of an employee were capped at Rs 4000 even where an employee
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 480
480
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
was able to prove the payment of a monthly wage in excess of
Rs 4,000 – The legislature, in its wisdom and keeping in mind the
purpose of the 1923 Act as a social welfare legislation deleted it
altogether – The objective of the amendment is to remove a deeming
cap on the monthly income of an employee and extend to them
compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages drawn by
them.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The object of enacting the Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of
economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work,
or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker
machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits. Prior
to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of the deeming provision in Explanation
II to Section 4, the monthly wages of an employee were capped
at Rs. 4000 even where an employee was able to prove the
payment of a monthly wage in excess of Rs. 4,000. The legislature,
in its wisdom and keeping in mind the purpose of the 1923 Act as
a social welfare legislation did not enhance the quantum in the
deeming provision, but deleted it altogether. [Paras 25, 26][494-
C-F]
2. Though amendments enhancing the compensation
payable under the 1923 Act confer a benefit upon employees, a
corresponding burden is imposed on employers to pay a higher
rate of compensation. There is nothing in Act 45 of 2009, either
express or implied, to denote an intention of the legislature to
confer the benefit of the amendment to accidents that took place
prior to its coming into force. The relevant date for the
determination of compensation payable is the date of the accident
and the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that
took place prior to its coming into force. In the present case, the
accident occurred on 31 January 2008 i.e. prior to the coming
into force of Act 45 of 2009. Consequently, the High Court erred
in extending the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 to the present case.
[Paras 28, 32, 33][496-B-C; 499-C-D]
3. The employer duly proved the monthly pay certificate
indicating that the deceased was drawing a monthly wage of
Rs. 32,000, including expenses towards food. Significantly, no
K SIVARAMAN & ORS v. P SATHISHKUMAR & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
appeal was filed by the respondents against the judgment of the
High Court enhancing the compensation. In view of this, the award
of compensation ordered by the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.