1. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Interest @12% -  Insurance company liable to pay. (2016)3 PLRSC 243
  2. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Wages - Neither of the parties produced any document on record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the deceased at the time of the accident -  Deceased was a highly skilled workman and would often be required to undertake long journeys outside the state in the line of duty, especially considering the fact that the vehicle in question had a registered National Route Permit - Wages of the deceased were accepted as Rs.4,000/- per month + daily bhatta of Rs.6,000/- per month   Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 13A, the onus is on the employer to maintain the register and records of wages - Since the employer has failed in his duty to maintain the proper records of wages of the deceased, the appellants cannot be made to suffer for it -  Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 13A . (2016)3 PLRSC 243
  3. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - After completing his duty to ply the bus was sleeping on the roof of the bus from where he fell down as he was fast asleep and undergone grevious head injury resulting in this compensation claim petition - Duty of the deceased had come to an end long back before he had gone to the roof of the bus to sleep - Sleeping on the top of the bus is not an act done during the course of the employment and during the course of the duty. (174) PLR (Del.)
  4. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - An attempt was made to hi-jack the vehicle - Resulting into death while driving the vehicle - Insurance company held liable. (174) PLR (Del.)
  5. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) - No doubt, strict provisions of CPC and Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings before the Commissioner, but, surely there has to be some modicum of evidence which the Courts consider to be a discharge of onus of proof of relationship of employer and employee and happening of the accident - Each case has to be examined as per its facts and the evidence as to whether at least some amount of evidence exists for the Court to accept the existence of relationship of employer and employee and happening of the accident. (175) PLR (Del.)
  6. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Evidence - Driver of the vehicle in question the deceased was his son - Death by live electric wire - Newspaper report was there which reported the incident and employment of deceased with the respondent - Employment is not proved because a newspaper report is no evidence in the eyes of law for proving employment. (175) PLR (Del.)
  7. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - If a driver is murdered when he was driving the truck during the course of his employment i.e while taking the truck to a particular place, then in such a case there exists the necessary connection of the death arising out of and in the course of employment - Investigation showed that the deceased was murdered by the cleaner of the truck, who thereafter fled.
  8. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Interest @12% - Insurance company liable to pay. (181) PLR
  9. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 167 - Even an argument that the claim could have been under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is equally meaningless for Section 167 itself provides for an option to the claimant to resort either to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or Employees Compensation Act - The claimants have adopted what was more beneficial to them and no exception could be taken to such a course. (182) PLR
  10. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - No requirement under the Employee's Compensation Act with regard to there being any documentary proof with reference to employment and especially in the case where a person has been appointed as an agricultural labour/helper/cleaner on a tractor - In such a situation, reliance has to be placed on the oral evidence. L & T General Insurance Company Limited,    (180) PLR
  11. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Payment of a sum of Rs.5,500/- before the Labour Commissioner to the respondent - Was right in pleading that this amount was given as a humanitarian aid to the respondent No.1 who was once an employee - In fact, the amount of Rs.5,500/- is so small that any person who is a contractor in order to avoid frequent visits to the Labour Commissioner leading to wastage of time and money in this regard would prefer to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- so that the issue is not carried any further before the Labour Commissioner. (175) PLR (Del.)
  12. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Petition filed - Order indicates - No such permission has been granted and the petition has simply been permitted to be withdrawn - The principal of res judicata<D> would also be applicable to the present petition as it is admittedly, the second claim petition. (182) PLR
  13. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Wages - Neither of the parties produced any document on record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the deceased at the time of the accident - Deceased was a highly skilled workman and would often be required to undertake long journeys outside the state in the line of duty, especially considering the fact that the vehicle in question had a registered National Route Permit - Wages of the deceased were accepted as Rs.4,000/- per month + daily bhatta of Rs.6,000/- per month  Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 13A, the onus is on the employer to maintain the register and records of wages - Since the employer has failed in his duty to maintain the proper records of wages of the deceased, the appellants cannot be made to suffer for it - Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) S. 13A . (181) PLR
  14. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S. 4(1)(b) - Explanation II - Since on the date of the accident, i.e. 18.04.2000, Explanation-II below Section 4(1)(b) read to say that where the monthly wages of a workman exceed Rs.2000/-, the compensation is to be calculated on the basis of the fact that such monthly wages were only Rs.2000/-, therefore, the benefit of the amendment which came about w.e.f. 08.12.2000, cannot apply to the case of the appellants.  (182) PLR
  15. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.   3(1)  Negligence of workman - The E.C. Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work.  - Liability of the employer, thus, arises, when the workman sustains injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment - Section 3 of the Act does not create any exception of the kind, which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was negligence on part of the workman -  The Act does not envisage a situation where the compensation payable to an injured or deceased workman can be reduced on account of contributory negligence - While no negligence on part of the deceased has been made out as he was merely trying his best to stop the truck from moving unmanned, even if there were negligence on his part, it would not disentitle his dependents from claiming compensation under the Act. (2016)3 PLRSC 243
  16. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  2dd - Junior Engineer employed person unauthorisedly - Accident took place in the office - Because of unauthorized act of the Junior Engineer, the department was forced to pay the compensation, as it was held vicariously liable for the act of its employee - Since the act of the Junior Engineer was unauthorized the department even then is vicariously liable but it has got the right to recover the compensation so paid from the Junior Engineer under the relevant service rules after following due procedure - Service Rules.  (180) PLR
  17. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  3(1) - Negligence of workman - The E.C. Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. - Liability of the employer, thus, arises, when the workman sustains injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment - Section 3 of the Act does not create any exception of the kind, which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was negligence on part of the workman - The Act does not envisage a situation where the compensation payable to an injured or deceased workman can be reduced on account of contributory negligence - While no negligence on part of the deceased has been made out as he was merely trying his best to stop the truck from moving unmanned, even if there were negligence on his part, it would not disentitle his dependents from claiming compensation under the Act. (181) PLR
  18. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Claim - As per the proceedings initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C., this fact is admitted that it was not the fault of the appellant or any other person and it was merely an accident, would not make any difference as the statutory provisions do not provide for any exception to the same, rather, it states otherwise according to which, this aspect is not to be looked into. (183) PLR
  19.  
  20.  
  21.  
  22.  
  23.  
  24.  
  25. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Claim - As per the proceedings initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C., this fact is admitted that it was not the fault of the appellant or any other person and it was merely an accident, would not make any difference as the statutory provisions do not provide for any exception to the same, rather, it states otherwise according to which, this aspect is not to be looked into. (183) PLR
  26. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Deceased workers were cooking meals when the cylinder burst - There is no dispute that both the workers were employed at the stone crushing site by the common employer and that the stone crusher was covered on the date of accident by an insurance policy - If kitchen facility and cooking gas were supplied by the employer at his expense to keep the deceased going then in absence of any evidence to the contrary it can be safely inferred that preparing food was part and parcel of the engagement while stationed at the workplace - Disadvantaged labour earn for food and can have little savings, if not whatsoever, from their minimum wages - It is also not the case in defence that the deceased were cooking dinner after nightfall or when work for the day was done and the time of death was beyond duty hours.  (178) PLR 
  27. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Employee was working on the brick kiln of the present appellants and was loading bricks on the cart - The cart moved and she fell down and her feet suffered fractures - Have not explained as to if she was not employed in the brick kiln, then how she happened to come to the brick kiln and was loading the bricks on the cart - Normally, in case of brick kiln worker, no appointment letter is issued and the engagement is oral - Clear that the accident took place during the course of employment.  (179) PLR
  28. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Employees Employee Relationship - Accident has taken place on the second floor of the house of the appellant which was being constructed/plastered and deceased was working in the said construction process and further, that he was performing the work for which he was engaged - No evidence on record which would indicate there was contractor - Relationship of employer-employee, thus, keeping in view the specific provisions of the statute, is duly established. (183) PLR
  29. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Interest - Is payable 30 days after the date of accident. (175) PLR (Del.)
  30. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Liability - Had become an injured while working as an electrician helper under the directions of contractor who admittedly was a Contractor engaged by the appellants for providing workforce, who had been giving the contract of maintaining the electricity lines - Liability has been correctly assessed - However, liberty has also been given to the appellants to proceed against Contractor.  (182) PLR
  31. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4 - Medical record shows that platelet counts on account of malaria had fallen to as low as 16,000 whereas the normal platelet counts are between 1.5 lacs to 4.5 lacs/cumm and which therefore had resulted in the death - Admittedly, there is no other medical record filed by the respondent to show the death of the deceased allegedly on account of stress and strain in driving. (175) PLR (Del.)
  32. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4-A - Employment - Names  of employees mentioned in the Payment Settlement (Summary) have not been connected in relationship with labour laws such as the ESI an EPF which could be probative evidence though not conclusive of the employment status of the deceased - The claimants for all they could do asserted that the deceased was employed as a Gardener by the appellant builder at the construction site - Company could not deny that the site was a building project where gardeners could possibly be employed for preparatory landscaping of the project - Death at site - Claimants version is that the deceased while performing his duties as a gardener during the course of employment was opening the tubewell valve to draw water for the plants when he suddenly fell down and got electrocuted due to the negligence of the Foreman in electrifying the apparatus - Award upheld. (177) PLR
  33. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4-A - Interest - In petition, compensation alongwith interest was prayed for as also penalty. Therefore, claim of interest was very much of a subject matter of main proceedings, but the first judgment which awarded compensation, did not grant interest although the same was specifically prayed for - Once the claim was made in the main proceedings and it was declined, that prayer is deemed to be dismissed or at least not allowed in view of Explanation (V) to Section 11 CPC it was upon the workmen to challenge the principal award - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 11, Explanation (V). (174) PLR (Del.)
  34. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4-A - Interest would run from the date of accident and not from the date of award on an adjudication. (177) PLR
  35. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4(2) - Order of the Commissioner is not justified with respect to the imposition of penalty and interest on the Insurance Company for the six month period i.e. from the date of accident i.e. 30.6.96 till the date of approaching the Court of the Commissioner - Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, and fact that the claimants are not at fault, the ends of justice will be met if recovery rights with respect to the entire penalty component and interest component for the six months period i.e. from July to December, 1996 are given to the appellant insurance company. (180) PLR
  36. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4A - Unjustified delay in payment of compensation as prescribed by section 4-A of the Act - Interest on penalty for default in payment would also accrue at the rate of 12% simple from the date it fell due and is so ordered.(177) PLR 
  37. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4A(3) - Order of penalty passed after the main order awarding compensation had been passed - Therefore it is nothing illegal that consequent upon finalization of proceedings for determination of compensation, that thereafter, proceedings under Section 4A are initiated. (174) PLR (Del.)
  38. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S.  4A(3) - Penalty - Payment/deposit has to be of the entire compensation amount calculated in terms of Section 4 of the Act and merely because part of the amount of compensation is paid is not a ground for not passing an order of penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) - In fact the Commissioner has noted the aspect of part payment and has not imposed maximum penalty of 50% as per Section 4A(3) of the Act but has imposed penalty of only 25% - Commissioner was entitled to impose penalty. (175) PLR (Del.)
  39. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S. 12 - Fall from the roof of the house where he was working - Person at whose place an employee of another employer is working, then the person at whose place where the work is being carried out is the principal and such principal becomes the deemed employer of the employee although the employee is employed by the parent employer - The principal or the deemed employer after paying compensation to the employee, is entitled to be indemnified by the actual employer of the employee i.e. the principal can recover the amount which is paid to the employee from the parent employer. (175) PLR (Del.)
  40. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S. 12 - If the deceased was not an employee of the appellant but was the employee of the sub-contractor, and that he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment in the course of his duty, then, by virtue of Section 12 of the Act, appellant was liable to make payment to the respondent No.1 - Section 12 has been included in the statute book so as to make two persons liable to the dependents of the deceased workman/employee, one being the actual employer and second the person (called a principal under Section 12 of the Act) at whose site the deceased employee was working although the employee was not an employee of the person at whose site work was being performed. (175) PLR (Del.)
  41. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S. 13 - Any stranger who is liable to pay damages may be asked to indemnify the employer and there was no reason as to why the appellant could not implead the UHBVN as a party to the claim application, if he was interested in pressing the said aspect - Permission to implead cannot be granted at this stage, however, he may avail of remedy, if any, in accordance with law against the said party. Held, that the house of the appellant was merely 2 to 3 feet away from the high voltage electricity wire and no evidence has been brought on record which would indicate that he had ever moved any application for shifting of the high voltage electricity wire from the place where it was running. In any case, as per Section 13 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, any stranger who is liable to pay damages may be asked to indemnify the employer and there was no reason as to why the appellant could not implead the UHBVN as a party to the claim application, if he was interested in pressing the said aspect. Due consideration in this regard has been given by Commissioner, which again cannot be faulted with. At this stage, counsel for the appellant states that he may be granted permission to take recourse for claiming compensation against UHBVN. Suffice it to say that such a party. (183) PLR
  42. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) S. 28 - Any payment otherwise than before the Commissioner is impermissible for being reckoned and Section 28 of the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 requires that an agreement by way of lumsum payment as compensation that is settled between the employer and employee is required to be in writing and it shall be fixed before the Commissioner, who on being satisfied about the genuineness, shall record the memorandum of agreement in Registry - Court has ordered notice in the manner of eliciting reply for imposing penalty or not - The Commissioner shall consider the truth or otherwise of the assertions made by the employer that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid to the representatives of the deceased - The Commissioner will take an appropriate decision, if proof of payment is made, for consideration of imposition of penalty or not, uninfluenced by the fact that the award had been passed ex-parte. (183) PLR