ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KEDAR CHARAN LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the Act'), Orissa State Electricity Board {in short, the Board') and its functionaries call in question legality of award made by the Commissioner, for Workmen's compensation cum. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (in short, 'the Commissioner') awarding Compensation of Rs. 40,770/- to Kedar Charan Lenka (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant' ).

(2.) THE award came to be made on the following background: Claimant filed a claim application under the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 60. 000/-for allegedly having sustained injuries in an accident while on his duty. While he was performing his duty of repairing the electric lines at Kundai under Kotapada section on August 12,1993, he met with accident and sustained injuries arising out of and in course of his employment. It was accepted by the Board and its functionaries that the claimant was an employee and had met with an accident on August 12,1993 in course of his employment. But, the gravity of injuries and age of the claimant were disputed. It was also contended that there was no loss of earning capacity, and therefore, question of entitlement to any compensation did notarise. Considering the materials on record, the Commissioner held that the claimant was enti- tied to compensation. Plea of the Board that there being no loss of earning the claimant was not entitled to any compensation did not find acceptance by the Commissioner, and award was made.

(3.) MR. B. K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Board and its functionaries submitted that since the claimant was re-engaged and was getting his usual salary, there was no loss of earning capacity and therefore, the question of any compensation does not arise. Strong reliance is placed by him on a decision of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 374 of 1992 disposed of on March 16, 1995 to buttress the stand that when there has been continuance of engagement there cannot be any loss of earning capacity. Additionally it is submitted that the quantum awarded is high. Mr. R. N. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that the plea advanced by the Board and its functionaries cannot be maintained. Mere re-engagement cannot deprive the workman benefit of compensation. The Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 40% with reference to the evidence of the doctor (PW2), and therefore no interference is warranted.