Chopra Printing Press vs Des Raj

J.S. Bedi, J.—Des Raj, an employee of Chopra Printing Press, Jullundur, made an application against Tilak Raj Suri, Proprietor of the Press for the recovery of Rs. 1,764 by way of compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. While working in the press he lost his right arm below the elbow. The application was resisted by the Respondent raising various pleas which gave rise to the following issues:

(1) Whether the Petitioner sustained the injury on 25th November, 1959, in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in the Respondent Press?

(2) Whether the applicant was drawing on the day of accident Rs. 60 per mensem?

(3) To what amount as compensation is the Petitioner entitled?

After recording the evidence led by the parties the Commissioner (S. Kartar Singh) found issue No. 1 in favour of the Petitioner. Under issue No. 2 he held that although the Petitioner was drawing Rs. 35 per mensem only yet the provisions of Section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act applied to this case and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation on the basis of Rs. 60 per mensem and consequently the Petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,512 as compensation.

The Appellant (Tilak Raj Suri) felt aggrieved against that order and came to this Court in appeal which came up before me on the 24th of August, 1961, when issue No. 2 was split up in three separate issues, namely (1) what remuneration Des Raj was drawing at the time this accident took place, (2) whether the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act applied to this case, and (3) if the answer to issue No. 2 is in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation would Des Raj be entitled and the case was remanded to the trial Court for its findings thereon.

Under issue No. (1), after remand, the Commissioner found that the Petitioner at that time was drawing Rs. 35 per mensem. Under issue No. (2) it was held that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act did apply and the Minimum Wages would be at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem by virtue of Section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner then found that the Petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,512. The case again came up before me for arguments. The counsel for the Appellant drew my attention to the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act and stated that the words used in this section ''has been in receipt of monthly wages'' show that the compensation will have to be paid to the Respondent on the basis of the wages which he actually received every month. The counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that admittedly the provisions of Minimum Wages Act did apply to this case,--vide notification No. 1704-S-Lab-57/3275-A, dated 28th February, 1957 and by virtue of this the wages which the Respondent would be deemed to be getting would be Rs. 60 per mensem. In this connection he drew my attention to Section 5 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act which relates to the method of calculating the wages. It lays down that in this Act and for the purposes thereof the expression ''monthly wages'' means the amount of wages deemed to be payable for a month''s service. He also drew my attention to Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act which says that any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employee either relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act.

It is obvious, therefore, that even if a person tries to contract out of the provisions of this Act, he cannot do so by virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act. It is true that at the time of this accident the Respondent was actually drawing Rs. 35 per mensem but reading Sections 4 and 5 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act along with Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act and the notification mentioned above leave no room for doubt whatsoever that the Respondent would be deemed to be getting Rs. 60 per mensem at the relevant time. As such the compensation allowed to the Respondent (Des Raj) was correctly estimated. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed with costs.