(1.) The insurance company is aggrieved by the award of 7.10.2016, recorded by the learned Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act , 1923, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in claim petition No. 157 of 2011, whereby he assessed upon the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs. 10,26,400.00, also fastened the apposite liability in respect of its liquidation upon the insurer. Uncontrovertedly, the demise of one Dalbir Singh, son of the appellant occurred during the course of his performing employment under his employer. It is also not disputed that the claimant was dependant upon the earnings of his deceased son. The relevant mishap which begot his demise evidently occurred on 14.9.2009. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Commissioner while computing compensation upon the claimant had proceeded to irrevere the mandate of the applicable hereat statutory tenet borne in Explanation-II occurring in sub-Section (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to in short as "the Act", Act whereof given its prevalence at the time of occurrence of the ill-fated mishap warranted its application hereat, than application of the mandate(s) borne in the Employees' Compensation Act, legislative enactment whereof came subsequently into force in the year 2010. He further espouses that the learned Commissioner, inaptly on anvil of a notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of statutory powers conferred upon it under Sec. 4(1)(b) of the Act, whereby explanation-II borne in Sec. 4 of the "Act" stood deleted, unbefittingly proceeded to assess compensation, whereas with the apposite notification issued by the Central Government evidently coming into force on 10.1.2010, hence, obviously subsequent to the demise of one Dalbir Singh rendered any reliance thereon besides application vis-a-vis the petition at hand, to be grossly inappropriate.
(2.) Tritely, the legal conundrum which warrants an answer being meted thereto, is, of the respective applicability(s) hereat of explanation-II borne in Sec. 4 of the Act or applicability of a notification subsequent thereto issued by the Central Government, whereby the aforesaid explanation stood deleted. Any answer to the aforesaid conundrum would hold a bearing upon the validity of the quantum of compensation amount assessed in the impugned award. Significantly also, the date of demise of one Dalbir Singh during the course of his performing employment under his employer, is also of utmost importance, for gauging therefrom whether explanation-II which was evidently in prevalence thereat or the subsequent thereto notification issued by the Central Government, whereby it stood deleted, are respectively applicable, for thereupon fathoming the validity of the quantum of compensation assessed under the impugned award. Undisputedly, the notification issued by the Central Government, whereby Explanation-II occurring in Sec. 4 of the Act was apparently not given any retrospective effect, wherefrom its inevitable to conclude that the Central Government in exercise of powers of delegated legislation hence issuing, it had not intended to explicitly cover the period whereat the demise of one Dalbir Singh occurred. In a like situation, this Court in a judgment reported in Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 456, New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. Nand Lal and another, relevant paragraph 7 whereof is extracted hereinafter:
(3.) However, at this stage, Mr. Dhairya Sushant and Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant, vehemently contend that the subsequent notification issued on 18.1.2010 by the Central Government whereby benefits stood bestowed upon the claimants' also whereby explanation-II occurring in the "Act" stood deleted, thereupon the bestowal of benefits thereunder upon the claimants "dehors" no explicit retrospectivity being accorded thereto, yet warranting their imperative ensuel vis-a-vis the claimants', beneficiaries thereto, conspicuously when it would hence facilitate the salutary beneficent purpose of the benevolent subsequent thereto apposite notification issued by the Central Government. Also, they contend that the Rules of interpretation in respect of beneficent benevolent provisions held in the apposite notification, enjoin(s) retrospectivity being accorded thereto "dehors" no explicit retrospective effect thereto being openly pronounced in the apposite rules/notification(s). In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant relies upon a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court Cases 937 (V 47 C 166), Mohandeolal Kanodia Vs. The Administrator General of West Begal relevant paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter: