Page 144 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS

Unit 8: Rules Regarding the Workmen’s Compensation Act

He said three years ago, in Chennai, the State unit of the CITU had submitted a memorandum Notes
to the Chief Justice of India expressing concern over the apex court’s decisions that had
“consistently gone against the working class”. On the High Court order calling for the
removal of the ceiling on wages for calculating compensation, he said: “This is one area
where the government has been consistently taking a negative attitude towards the demands
of workers and trade unions.” He alleged that the government had made changes in the
various enactments on wages wherever it wanted to favour the employers, but nothing of
much use to the workers had been done in this regard. With regard to pieces of legislations
such as the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Bonus Act, the wage ceiling had not
been amended for years, he said. Though it had been continuously pointed out by trade
unions in various tripartite meetings including the Indian Labour Conference, the highest
tripartite body in the country, that certain sections of the Bonus Act had become obsolete,
the wage limits prescribed for the application of the bonus law remained, he added.
Pointing out that only recently the Union Cabinet decided to amend the Gratuity Act,
which put a ceiling on the maximum amount payable to workers, he said, these were
only a few examples to show how wage ceilings in the present inflationary situations took
away the meagre amounts that workers were to get as a benefit or as compensation. At
least in the wake of the High Court’s judgment, he said, the government should come
forward to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the lines of the Motor Vehicles
Act. Expressing similar sentiments, S.S. Thyagarajan, general secretary of the State unit of
the AITUC, said trade unions had always demanded that the government lift the ceiling on
the wages for all welfare schemes, including Provident Fund, Employees’ State Insurance,
and bonus. According to him, the judgment of the High Court “has a tinge of humanitarian
consideration”. He pointed out that the governments had always been reluctant to effect
an upward revision of wages that would benefit workers. Whenever amendments effected
an enhancement of wages, the increases became virtually redundant owing to belated
implementation, he said. “We hope the essence of the judgment will be taken into account
and wages will be enhanced appropriately to benefit workers and their families,” he said.

Question:
Critically analyse the above case.
Source: //www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2707/stories/20100409270709800.htm

8.7 Summary

l z The language in Section 3 shows that injury is caused by accident and not ‘by an
accident’.
l z The wilful disregard of the usage of the safety device or safety guard provided for the
purpose of securing safety of the workman by the employer.
l z Schedule III is divided into three parts, viz., A, B and C. No specific period of employment
is necessary for a claim for compensation with respect to occupational diseases mentioned
in Part A.
l z Section 10 of the Act prescribes that a claim for compensation shall be entertained by the
Commissioner only after a notice of the accident has been given to him.

l z Every notice shall be served upon the employer. It may be served by delivering it at or
sending it by registered post and addressed to the residence or any of office or place of
business of the person on whom it is to be served.
l z The power to make rules conferred by section 32 shall be subject to the condition of the
rules being made after previous publication.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 139