TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Workmen's right to prompt compensation prevails over sick company protection under SICA</h1> <h3>K. Logachandran Versus District Collector</h3> K. Logachandran Versus District Collector - [2010] 157 COMP. CAS. 68 (MAD.) Issues Involved:1. Whether enforcement of an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, can be stalled by the employer by invoking Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Enforcement of Workmen's Compensation Award vs. Section 22(1) of SICA:The petitioner, a workman who lost his right hand while working, was awarded compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The employer, declared a sick company by the BIFR, failed to pay the compensation, citing Section 22(1) of SICA, which suspends legal proceedings against sick companies.2. Legal Framework and Interpretation:The Workmen's Compensation Act mandates prompt payment of compensation once it falls due. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed clarified that compensation falls due on the date of adjudication, not the date of the accident. Section 4A of the Act obligates employers to pay compensation promptly or face recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 31.3. Scope of Section 22(1) of SICA:Section 22(1) of SICA suspends legal proceedings against sick companies, including execution and distress. However, it does not apply to all dues. The Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa differentiated between dues included in the rehabilitation scheme and those arising post-scheme. The Kerala High Court in Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala and the Gujarat High Court in EZY Slide Fastners Ltd. v. Joint CIT emphasized that taxes collected from consumers belong to the state and cannot be withheld.4. Applicability to Workmen's Compensation:Various High Courts have held that statutory benefits like wages, gratuity, and compensation under labor laws are not covered by Section 22(1) of SICA. The Gujarat High Court in Rajnagar Textiles Mills No. 1 v. Textile Labour Association and the Calcutta High Court in Rabindra Nath Banerjee v. Certificate Officer ruled that such benefits are the workman's right and cannot be withheld. The Delhi High Court in Mideast India Ltd. v. K. M. Unni and the Karnataka High Court in Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour supported this view.5. Judicial Consensus on Workmen's Rights:The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Gowri Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner concluded that provident fund dues are not covered by Section 22(1) of SICA. The Bombay High Court in Duttatraya Laxman Kulkarni v. Aurangabad Paper Mills Ltd. specifically held that workmen's compensation awards are not barred by Section 22(1).6. Day-to-Day Operations and Current Assets:The BIFR's order allowed the company to use current assets for day-to-day operations, which includes paying statutory benefits to workmen. The court emphasized that the compensation amount belongs to the workman once adjudicated and cannot be withheld by the company.Conclusion:The court concluded that Section 22(1) of SICA does not bar the recovery of workmen's compensation. The writ petition was allowed, directing respondents to recover the amount as per the certificate issued by the Commissioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, within three months. The judgment underscores the priority of workmen's statutory rights over the protective provisions of SICA for sick companies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
