Supreme Court restores Commissioner’s order on compensation to woman based on 100 percent permanent disability

Supreme Court restores Commissioner’s order on compensation to woman based on 100 percent permanent disability

Sets aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, explaining it should observe functional and not just physical condition

The Supreme Court has restored the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner’s order awarding the appellant the compensation based on 100 percent permanent disability.

While dealing with a case regarding compensation for a work injury, the Division Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had reduced the amount of compensation by treating the permanent disability of the appellant as 40 percent.

The appellant was working as a loading and unloading laborer. On 03-10-2002, while loading poles onto a truck, the chain pulley broke and the poles fell on the woman’s left arm, causing a compound fracture.

The Apex Court allowed the appellant’s contention under Section 2 (1) (1) of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 which provided for functional and not just physical disability. This assessed whether the claimant had incurred total disablement. If the disablement incapacitates a person for all the work that he/she could perform at the time of the accident, the disablement would be taken as a total for the purpose of the compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. This is regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act.

The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. It rather adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there was permanent total disablement.

The bench stated that based on the woman’s medical certificate, the Commissioner found the appellant was unfit for labor, as there was a complete loss of grip in her left hand. Prior to the accident, she worked as a loading/unloading laborer. Even if she could use her right hand, the crux was whether the woman was considered suitable for performing her task, which was ordinarily performed by using both hands.

The Judges observed, “There is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the appellant was skilled to perform any kind of job by using one hand. It is also not a case where the appellant had the skill to perform her job by using machines, which the appellant could operate by using one hand. In such circumstances, when the Board certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labor, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability.

The Bench added, “Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arose for consideration by the high Court so as to allow the appeal in the exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act. The high Court erred in partly setting aside the order of the Commissioner and assessing the disability as 40 percent instead of 100 percent, as assessed by the Commissioner.”

The woman laborer had filed a petition seeking compensation for permanent total disablement as her left arm was rendered useless. The respondents, the employer and insurance company, did not dispute the facts, but contested the claim.

The Commissioner found that the appellant was permanently unfit for labor work due to her injuries. He assessed her permanent disability as total and awarded compensation of Rs.3,74,364 based on her age and wages.

However, partly allowing the insurance company's appeal, the high Court reduced the amount from Rs. 3,74,364 to Rs. 1,49,745.60 by treating permanent disability as 40 percent. It stated that except for her left hand, the appellant had no other disability and could carry out tasks with her right hand.

However, the Top Court set aside the high Court order. It ruled that total disablement was assessed based on functional and not just physical disability. As the appellant could no longer perform her work as a loading laborer due to loss of grip in her left hand, the Commissioner was justified in assessing her disability.