PROJECT OFFICER, BASDEOPUR COLLIERY Vs. DHANESWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 25.6.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in connection with W.C. Case No. 03 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 3,95,850/- to the claimant/respondent. The brief facts behind the order is that one Ganauri Yadav was a permanent employee of M/s. BCCL and he was working at Basudeopur colliery under Sijua Area No. V as Surface Trammer. On 13.5.2000 at about 8.20 p.m. while he was on duty he was assaulted by some miscreants and sustained injuries, as a result he died on 28.6.2000. The matter was reported to Loyabad Police Station vide letter No. 139 dated 14.5.2000 and accordingly F.I.R. was registered. Since Ganauri Yadav died in course of his duty at his work place, the claimant, namely, Dhaneshwari Devi, wife of late Ganauri Yadav filed a petition for compensation and it was registered as W.C. Case No. 03 of 2004. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, after recording evidence and giving opportunities to the parties of hearing, passed the impugned order and an Award of Rs. 3,95,850/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground i.e. Issue No. 3 which has been decided in Para-11 of the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has submitted and drawn my attention towards section 4(1)(a) and Explanation 2 under which the calculation was made. It is submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has calculated the compensation amount in view of the amendment which has been given effect from 8.12.2000 where as occurrence admitted to have taken place on 13.5.2000 i.e. prior to the amendment in the said provision. As per the existing provision, then the calculation should have been made as 50% X 2000 X 131.95 = Rs. 1,39,850/-.

(3.) It is further pointed out that the original claim of the claimant was also under the same calculation, but the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad has wrongly calculated the amount under the amended provision and therefore, the aforesaid finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the amount payable to the claimant shall be calculated in view of the existing provision as contained under section 4 at the relevant point of time. In this context learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Walsala Kr. and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 3502 In paragraph-5 their lordships have held as follows:--