THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.M.A.NOS.468 AND 469 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the subject matter in both the appeals is connected and the respondents are common and the deceased in both the appeals, died in one and the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment for the sake of convenience. 3. The appellants in both the appeals are the dependants of the deceased. Both the deceased in the two appeals are D.Sanjeeva Rao and Y.Pandit. Both were engaged as casual labour in SHAR Project of the respondent – Satish Dhavan Space Centre, Sriharikota. On 23.2.2004 an accident occurred at Splid Propellant Space Booster (SPROB) plant in the respondent – organization. In that accident, both the deceased died. Claiming compensation, the dependants filed claim petitions before the court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Assistant. Commissioner of Labour, Nellore. 4. The authority below appreciating entire evidence particularly Exs.A-4 and R-1, which are the copies of the entry pass permits of identification and the letter of the respondent –organization, found that that on the date of the accident the deceased were deputed to SPROB casting facility. The authority below found that they come within the definition of workmen under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, whether their employment was casual or permanent. The authority below also recorded finding of fact that the workmen died in the accident, which arose out of and in the course of employment and that the applicants are entitled to receive the compensation. Accordingly taking the age and the wages of the deceased, granted the compensation of Rs.2,39,686-00 and Rs.2,34,028-00 respectively. 5. In the appeal the main contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the claimants were given a lump sum amount of Rs.2,75,000/- each for the death of the deceased towards ex grtia, but while granting compensation, the said amount was not given credit to. 6. The above contention raised by the appellants was considered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh in DIVISIONAL ENGINEER M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. MANTOBAI[1]. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “2. . . Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, or this court, in appeal, in view of the provisions of Sections 8, 28 and 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has jurisdiction to give credit for any ‘direct payment’ of any nature, including payment in the nature of ex gratia compensation under any other statutory provision or contract and whether the compensation determined payable to the workman under the Act would be liable to be reduced by such payments? 14. We would, therefore, answer in the negative, the question referred to us. We hold that neither the workmen’s compensation Commissioner nor this court, in appeal, has any jurisdiction to give any credit for any ‘direct’ payment of any nature made to deceased workman’s dependants, including any payment in the nature of ex gratia compensation, whether made under any other statutory provision or under contract. We further hold that the compensation which is determined payable to the workman under the Act is not reducible on account of such payment though ‘deduction’ or ‘repayment’ contemplated statutorily under Section 8 only, can be made. 7. Similar view was expressed by this court in STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER v K.PUSHPALATHA AND OTHERS[2] while considering the claim made under the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “11. In view of the above judgments it is clear that providing of employment to any of the eligible dependants of the deceased, who dies in harness due to the motor accident cannot be taken as a ground to deny the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act after adjudicating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Similarly, payment of ex gratia by the employer or the Government and payment of amounts viz., provident fund, group insurance or any amounts of such nature, which are contributed by the deceased because of his mandatory service conditions, cannot be deducted from the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 8. In view of the above judgments it is clear that the amounts paid towards ex gratia cannot be given credit to, while granting the amount under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the authority below rightly considered this aspect. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any question of law or any infirmity in the impugned order for interference of this court in the appeals and the appeals are devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------- 30—04—2010 [1] 1989-MPLJ-0-28 [2] 2006(5) ALD 614