AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No. 13661-CII of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 13662-CII of 2012
In view of the submissions made in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 6 days in refiling this appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 13663-CII of 2012
The instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 221 days in filing the appeal.
Since the appeal is being decided on merits, this application has become redundant.
FAO No. 3180 of 2012
This is claimant''s appeal challenging the award of Commissioner, Jind, under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, whereby compensation payable to the claimant has been determined under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 keeping in view the fact that accident had occurred on 15.06.2007.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Commissioner, Jind has erred at law while not applying the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which have come into force with effect from 18.01.2010 and according to which the upper ceiling of income, as provided under Explanation II of Section 4(b) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 has been omitted, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to much higher compensation as per the aforesaid provisions. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in ''Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jasbir Kaur and others'' 2012 (2) SCT 124, wherein in similar circumstances the benefit was granted under the new Act. However, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that while granting compensation, the Court has not considered the question of retrospective application of the provisions of the new Act, which are substantive in nature. Thus, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable. It is well settled that substantive law cannot be made applicable retrospectively without specific legislation in this regard. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.