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>Employer's Duty to Provide Compensation Upheld Under Workmen's Compensation Act</h1> <h3>Pratap Narain Singh Deo Versus Srinivas Sabata and Anr.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's decision on compensation, jurisdiction, penalty, and interest under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The ... - Issues:1. Determination of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.3. Calculation of penalty and interest under Section 4A of the Act.4. Employer's liability for compensation under Section 3 of the Act.5. Failure of the employer to make timely compensation payments.Analysis:Issue 1: Determination of CompensationThe appeal involved the determination of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for an employee who suffered a severe injury resulting in the amputation of his left arm. The Commissioner calculated the compensation based on the loss of earning capacity of the employee, which was deemed to be '100 percent.' The appellant contested the calculation, arguing that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement, but the Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the injury rendered the employee unfit for his profession as a carpenter.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the CommissionerThe appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to adjudicate on the claim. Despite the appellant's objections, the Commissioner's authority to assess and determine the compensation was upheld by the Court. The appellant's attempt to dispute the Commissioner's jurisdiction was deemed unfounded, and the Commissioner's decision was considered valid.Issue 3: Calculation of Penalty and InterestThe Commissioner imposed a penalty and interest under Section 4A of the Act due to the employer's failure to make timely compensation payments. The Court found the penalty justified, highlighting the employer's negligence in not making any provisional payments, providing false information, and delaying the compensation process. The Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to impose penalty and interest on the employer.Issue 4: Employer's Liability for CompensationThe Court reiterated the employer's liability under Section 3 of the Act to pay compensation for personal injury caused to a worker during employment. The employer's obligation to compensate the injured worker arose as soon as the injury occurred, and the employer's attempts to delay or dispute the compensation were deemed unjustified. The Court emphasized the employer's duty to promptly provide compensation as per the Act.Issue 5: Failure to Make Timely PaymentsThe employer's failure to make timely compensation payments, coupled with false claims and objections, led to the employee resorting to legal action to obtain rightful compensation. The Court condemned the employer's actions and upheld the penalty and interest imposed by the Commissioner. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision and emphasizing the employer's negligence in fulfilling compensation obligations.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's decision on compensation, jurisdiction, penalty, and interest, emphasizing the employer's liability and duty to provide timely and adequate compensation to injured workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
