(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Amravati in W.C.A. No. 3/2002, rejecting the application (Exh.1), the present appeal was filed in this Court by the claimants.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for appellants, who argued that the appellants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,32,580/-as claimed in the application but the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation upheld the stand of the respondents that amount of Rs. 1,69,510/-only was payable as the amendment to Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 was not applicable in the case of the appellants, which is contrary to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Asokan,1997 1 CLR 1039, in which reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 16904 to 16909, decided on 6.11.1996 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Neelakandan and Ors. He then submits that the issue is covered by the said supreme Court judgment, dated 6.11.1996 and accordingly this Court should dispose of the present appeal.
(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the amendment by Act No. 30 of 1995 effective from 15.9.1995 cannot have retrospective application and therefore, the amount payable under Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be claimed retrospectively by virtue of amendment of 1995. I had adjourned the matter to enable learned Counsel for respondents to find out if there is any judgment contrary to the one in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Asokan, cited supra, and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. V.K. Neelakandan and Ors. However, on 15.7.2009 when the case was heard finally, learned Counsel for respondents stated at the bar that there is no contrary judgment of any High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court.