TANGABANDRA MINERALS LTD Vs. G AMEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, dated 17-1-2004 passed in W. C. No. 1140/2001. It may not be necessary to refer to the facts of the case, as it is not in dispute that the respondent-workman is an employee under the appellant and that he has sustained injury in the course of the employment.

(2.) MR. K. N. Srinivasa, learned Counsel for the appellant urges a solitary, but formidable, contention that the appellant has paid the salary for the laid up period, spent on the medical treatment of the respondent-workman and retained the services of the respondent-workman; therefore he has not suffered any loss of earning. Mr. Srinivasa further submits that subsequent to the accident, the respondent-workman is even promoted from the cadre of Electrician to the cadre of Senior electrician and that is placed on higher scale of pay. As there is no reduction in his earnings, the question of paying any compensation does not arise at all.

(3.) MR. Srinivasa brings to my notice section 2 (g) and the Proviso (a) of Section3 (1)of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act ). The same are extracted hereinabelow: