MAYINKUTTY C. Vs. PARAYIL BALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the captioned appeal lost their son while he was 18 years old. He was working under Sathyan, the third opposite party in the application filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner. Sathyan was the contractor for laying marble in a building being constructed by Parayil Balan Nair, the first opposite party in that case. The contract for putting up the structural works was given to K. V. Gopalan, the second opposite party therein.

(2.) At the outset, we shall deal with the contentions of the appellants in the appeal that the Commissioner has not fixed adequate compensation. The date of accident is 06/04/1996. The impugned award is not criticized regarding the multiplier adopted. The only attack is on the monthly wages fixed. The Commissioner took note of the Government Order dated 14/06/1988 and held that the daily wages under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant point of time was around Rs.59.00, for skilled labourers. The deceased, then only 18 years of age, who died on 06/04/1996, was held to have drawn an amount of Rs.59.00 per day and Rs.1,534/- per month, though the applicants claimed that the deceased was drawing Rs.2,500.00 per month. We think that while the learned Commissioner was justified in treating him as an unskilled labourer, at the age of 18 years, the wages could have been taken as Rs.2,000.00 per month since Rs.1,534/- per month is reflected by the minimum wages notification dated 14/06/1988 and the accident occurred on 06/05/1996, that is, about eight years after the minimum wages were fixed. To that extent, the appellants would succeed in the appeal because we are of the view that the Commissioner failed to note the time lag between the notification under the Minimum Wages Act and the date of accident and this gives rise to a substantial question of law to interfere in favour of the appellants in the appeal, in that regard.

(3.) The appellants have the further case that it is Parayil Balan Nair, the owner of the premises, who should pay compensation and not Sathyan, the third opposite party who has been found to be the person engaged as a contractor for laying the marble slabs.