1999 JTR(SC) 1042
2000 ACJ 5 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 3502 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 3496 ; 1999 6 ALT(SC) 6 ; 2000 1 AndhWR(SC) 39 ; 1999 2 CLR 868 ; 2000 1 CTC 563 ; 1999 95 FJR 521 ; 1999 83 FLR 508 ; 1999 83 FLR 896 ; 1999 7 JT 292 ; 1999 3 KLT 348 ; 1999 LIC 3290 ; 1999 2 LLJ 1112 ; 1999 4 LLN 1183 ; 1999 4 RSJ 409 ; 1999 6 Scale 31 ; 1999 8 SCC 254 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 50 ; 1999 SCR 657 ; 1999 5 SLR 209 ; 1999 3 UPLBEC 2450 ; 1999 WBLR 528 ; 1999 KHC 597 ; 1999 8 Supreme 362
1999(8) Supreme 362
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
Valsala K. & Anr. etc. etc. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21613 of 1997
With
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22950/97, 22590/97, 1481/98, 1799/98, 16518/98
And
Civil Appeal No. 5962 of 1997
Decided on 16-9-1999
Very Important point
The amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would not be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15.9.1995.
Act Referred :WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT : S.4(a), S.4(a)(3), S.4
(A) Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, as amended by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, which enhance compensation amounts and interest, do not apply to accidents occurring before the amendment date; the relevant date for determining compensation rights and liabilities is the date of the accident, as affirmed by a four-judge Bench of this Court and a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, and the amendment is prospective only.
(B) The benefit under the Workmens Compensation Act is contingent upon the occurrence of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment; the date of accident governs the rate and amount of compensation, not the date of adjudication; and amendments increasing compensation do not have retrospective effect.
Facts of the case:
Claims for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act arising from accidents causing death or permanent disablement that occurred prior to 15.9.1995 were being challenged on the basis of enhanced compensation and interest under the 1995 amendment.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the relevant date for determining compensation rights is the date of the accident, and the 1995 amendment does not apply retrospectively; the decisions of the High Courts based on this interpretation are correct.
Issues:
Whether amendments enhancing compensation and interest under the Workmens Compensation Act apply to accidents occurring before the commencement of the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The date of the accident determines the compensation payable, and enhancements introduced by subsequent amendments do not have retrospective application.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
(A) Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, as amended by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, which enhance compensation amounts and interest, do not apply to accidents occurring before the amendment date; the relevant date for determining compensation rights and liabilities is the date of the accident, as affirmed by a four-judge Bench of this Court and a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, and the amendment is prospective only.
(B) The benefit under the Workmens Compensation Act is contingent upon the occurrence of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment; the date of accident governs the rate and amount of compensation, not the date of adjudication; and amendments increasing compensation do not have retrospective effect.
Facts of the case:
Claims for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act arising from accidents causing death or permanent disablement that occurred prior to 15.9.1995 were being challenged on the basis of enhanced compensation and interest under the 1995 amendment.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the relevant date for determining compensation rights is the date of the accident, and the 1995 amendment does not apply retrospectively; the decisions of the High Courts based on this interpretation are correct.
Issues:
Whether amendments enhancing compensation and interest under the Workmens Compensation Act apply to accidents occurring before the commencement of the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The date of the accident determines the compensation payable, and enhancements introduced by subsequent amendments do not have retrospective application.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Order
SLP (C) Nos. 21613/97, 22950/97, 22590/97, 1481/98, 1799/98 and 16518/ 1998 :
The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether, the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15.9.1995?
2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.
3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr.1 speaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation, is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim.
4. A two Judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.K. Neelakandan & Ors. etc. etc.2 however, took the view that Workmen’s Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the Workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. The two Judge Bench in Neelakandan’s case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo’s case, as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo’s case, the view expressed by the two Judge Bench in Neelakandan’s case is not correct.
5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi3 wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workman becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it.
6. Having answered the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment in the negative, we shall take up this batch of special leave petitions for consideration.
7. Insofar as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but after clarifying the law, as noticed above.
Civil Appeal No. 5962/1997 :
8. This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, dated 22.10.1996. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and is in accord with the judgment of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (supra) as also the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi (supra). There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Valsala K. & Anr. etc. etc., 1999(8) Supreme 362 : 1999 (83) FLR 508 : 1999(2) LLJ 1112 : 1999 LIC 3290 : 1999(8) SCC 254 : 1999 (83) FLR 896 : 1999(4) CCC 251 : 1999(7) JT 292
00038