Vidya Devi and Another @APPELLANT@Hash Executive Engineer Electrical

(a),where death results from the injury,"an amount equal to [fifty per cent.] of the monthly wages of

the deceased [employees] multiplied by the relevant factor;

or

a n amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees],

whichever is more;

(b),"where permanent total disablement

results from the injury","an amount equal to [sixty per cent.] of the monthly wages of

the injured [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor;

or

a n amount of [one lakh and forty thousand rupees],

whichever is more.

was not containing any limit for the purpose of calculation of amount of compensation under this Section wherein it is provided that in case of death,,

resulting from injury, amount of compensation shall be an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased employee multiplied by the",,

relevant factor or an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, whichever is higher.",,

Before 18.1.2010 explanation II to Section 4 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act was providing that monthly wages for the purpose of clauses (a) and (b),",,

where monthly wages of workman exceeds Rs.4,000/-, shall be considered @ Rs.4,000/- only. But such limit was not existing after omission of this",,

Explanation II vide Amendment Act, 2009 w.e.f. 18.1.2010 and the notification limiting monthly wages maximum to Rs.8,000/- was notified on",,

31.5.2010 only. On the date of accident i.e. 21.4.2010, there was no such ceiling on the monthly wages. The amount of compensation to the",,

appellants/claimants fell due on expiry of one month after the date of accident i.e. on 21.5.2010. Therefore, as per law existing on the date of accident",,

or on the date on which amount fell due, there was no ceiling either of Rs.4,000/- or Rs.8,000/- specified as maximum limit of monthly wages for the",,

purpose of calculation of compensation under Section 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.,,

The Act applicable in present case is a beneficiary legislation and it is settled law that the provisions of the Act are to be interpreted in a manner,,

which is beneficial to the beneficiary, i.e. workman. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and Another, (2009) 6",,

SCC, 280 has held that Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 being a beneficial legislation, as providing for payment of compensation to workmen",,

employed by the employer deserves liberal construction and requires to be interpreted with a view to give effect to the legislative intent therein.,,

Learned Commissioner at the time of calculating the compensation has determined the amount by applying omitted Explanation II, Â which was",,

existed prior to 18.1.2010, by giving reasoning that there is no notification issued by the Central Government specifying the monthly wages under sub-",,

section (1B) of Section 4 of the Act or proviso to Section 4(1) (a) and (b) of the Act after omission of Explanation II. Learned Commissioner has,,

committed a mistake by applying the non existing Explanation II, which is not on statute w.e.f. 18.1.2010. By applying the provisions of law as existing",,

on the date of accident and also on the date when the amount of compensation fell due, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by multiplying",,

50% of the last drawn/payable monthly wages of deceased with relevant factor provided under the Act.,,

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that at the time of deciding the claim petition preferred by the appellants/claimants, notification",,

dated 31.5.2010 was in existence and therefore, ceiling of monthly wages @ Rs.8,000/-, for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation",,

under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act, was applicable and at the most appellants/claimants are entitled for amount of compensation calculated by taking",,

monthly wages as 50% of maximum limit of Rs.8,000/- i.e. @ Rs.4,000/- per month. In my opinion, the plea of respondent is misconceived, as the",,

entitlement of claimants is to be calculated on the date of accident and not on the date of decision of the claim petition. Even if, the entitlement is taken",,

from the date on which the amount of compensation fell due, the situation remains the same as the notification dated 31.5.2010 is subsequent to the",,

date 21.5.2010.,,

Learned commissioner has committed a mistake by relying upon the omitted explanation II to Section 4(1) (a) and (b) of the Act and,,

appellants/claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount in view of amendment made in Section 4 of the Act. The substantial question of law is,,

answered accordingly.,,

In view of above discussion, I hold that appellants/claimants are entitled for amount of compensation to be calculated on the basis of monthly",,

salary of deceased at the rate of Rs.18,061/-, which shall be calculated as under:-",,

50% i.e. half of monthly wages:Â Rs.9,030/-",,

Relevant factor :Â 153.09,,

Amount of compensation : 153.09X9,030=Rs.13,82,402/-",,

Respondent/employer had deposited interim compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on 22.6.2010, whereas appellants/claimants were entitled",,

for compensation of Rs.13,82,402/-. Therefore, appellants/claimants are also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 21.5.2010 to",,

21.6.2010 on the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs.13,82,402/- and w.e.f. 22.6.2010 on remaining amount of Rs.12,32,402/- till date of deposit of",,

Rs.1,56,180/- and thereafter on remaining amount of Rs.10,76,222/- till full and final realization/payment of entire compensation.",,

Funeral charges of Rs.5000/- and/or any other benefits granted by the Commissioner are kept intact, for which the appellants/claimants are",,

entitled.,,

Respondent is directed to deposit balance enhanced compensation in Registry of this Court within eight weeks from today.,,