PAMMA RAM Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a workman's appeal under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, against an order of compensation passed by the Commissioner for Workmmen's Compensation, Mahasu. The appellant was employed as a labourer on the- Hindustan-Tibet Road, near Theog. He was employed by a contractor, named Chet Ram, who-was working on behalf of the State P. W. D. As a result of rock burst, the appellant was severely injured and lost the vision of both eyes. The learned Commissioner found that the Hima-chal Pradesh P. W. D. was the principal employer and they were liable to pay compensation. The Commissioner's rinding is that the appellant was earning Rs. 27- per day. In conformity with Schedule IV of the Act, he awarded the workman appellant a sum of Rs. 2,520/as compensation.

(2.) In appeal, it was argued by learned counsel that the finding of the Commissioner on this point was erroneous. It is contended that the appellant was earning Rs. 3/4/- per day and as such he should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 4,200/- as compensation under Schedule IV. As regards the appellant's wages, a specific issue in this regard was framed by the Commissioner. His finding is that the appellant was being paid Rs. 1/12/- per day plus annas four per day on account of the special nature of the work. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner has relied upon the statement of the S. D. O., P. W. D, Learned counsel for the appellant cited, 'inter alia', --'Devidayal Ralyasam v. Secy of State', AIR 1937 Sind 288 (A), where it was held:

(3.) Learned Government Advocate, on the hand, cited--'Cooling Equipment Co.,. Ltd. v. Mt. Zainalu Bibi', AIR 1943 Lah 52 (B), where a Division Bench of that High Court observed: