AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
CM No. 25324-CII of 2010
Application is allowed as prayed for. Notification dated 01.03.2002 is taken on record.
FAO No. 3543 of 2008
This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-
VI, Gurgaon [for short ""Commissioner""] by which the dependents of the deceased Mohd. Asgar Hussain @ Asgar have been awarded a sum of
Rs. 7,26,641/-, out of which the amount of compensation is Rs. 4,33,820/-, by assessing income of the deceased @ Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the stand of the employer is that he was giving Rs. 1,000/- per month along with Rs. 50/- per
day to the deceased, which comes to Rs. 2,500/- per month. He further submits that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in relying
upon the bald statement of the claimants wherein they have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month.
By virtue of CM No. 25324-CII of 2010, the Appellant has placed on record a notification issued by the Labour Department of Government of
Haryana dated 01.03.2002, as per which the minimum wages of an unskilled worker has been fixed @ Rs. 2,050/- per month. He submits that a
Cleaner on the truck is also an unskilled worker.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record with his able assistance.
No doubt that the notification dated 01.03.2002 prescribes minimum wages of an unskilled worker @ Rs. 2,050/- per month, but it does not
mean that he cannot be given more than the prescribed minimum wages. Notification was issued by the Government of Haryana only for the
purpose that an unskilled worker in the State of Haryana, after this notification, should not be paid less than the prescribed minimum wages,
whereas, admittedly, the employer has admitted that he was paying Rs. 2,500/- per month in aggregate to the deceased. Thus, in my view, the
Appellant cannot derive any benefit from the notification which has been placed on record by it. The question then arises as to ""whether the
Commissioner has rightly granted Rs. 4,000/- towards monthly wages of the deceased. In this regard, the finding has been recorded that father of
the deceased, who had appeared as AW6, had deposed that his deceased son was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month besides
Rs. 50/- per day as daily expenses and they were all dependents upon his earning. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident.
Learned Commissioner, in this regard, has relied upon two decisions in the cases of Aslam Sirdar Ahmed Bepari v. Mohd Ghouse Kutbuddin
Dharwadkar and Ors. 1999(1) T.A.C. 397 and Mallikarjun Gundappa Patil and Ors. v. Ambadas Baburao Vardekara and Anr. 2004(3) TAC
752, wherein it has been held that in case the employer failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding salary, then the salary claimed by
the applicant be taken into consideration. In this case also, the employer has not produced on record any evidence in support of his pleading that
he had engaged the deceased at the salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month besides Rs. 50/- per day as daily expenses, therefore, to my mind, there is no
error committed by the learned Commissioner in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 4,000/- per month on the basis of aforesaid two
judgments.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.