FAO No.3543 of 2008 (O&M) -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3543 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:08.10.2010. National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Smt. Rahisan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM No.25324-CII of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Notification dated 01.03.2002 is taken on record. FAO No.3543 of 2008 This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-VI, Gurgaon [for short “Commissioner”] by which the dependents of the deceased Mohd. Asgar Hussain @ Asgar have been awarded a sum of `7,26,641/-, out of which the amount of compensation is `4,33,820/-, by assessing income of the deceased @ `4,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the stand of the employer is that he was giving `1,000/- per month along with `50/- per day to the deceased, which comes to `2,500/- per month. He further submits that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in relying upon the bald statement of the claimants wherein they have claimed that FAO No.3543 of 2008 (O&M) -2- ******* the deceased was earning `4,000/- per month. By virtue of CM No.25324-CII of 2010, the appellant has placed on record a notification issued by the Labour Department of Government of Haryana dated 01.03.2002, as per which the minimum wages of an unskilled worker has been fixed @ `2,050/- per month. He submits that a Cleaner on the truck is also an unskilled worker. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his able assistance. No doubt that the notification dated 01.03.2002 prescribes minimum wages of an unskilled worker @ `2,050/- per month, but it does not mean that he cannot be given more than the prescribed minimum wages. Notification was issued by the Government of Haryana only for the purpose that an unskilled worker in the State of Haryana, after this notification, should not be paid less than the prescribed minimum wages, whereas, admittedly, the employer has admitted that he was paying `2,500/- per month in aggregate to the deceased. Thus, in my view, the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the notification which has been placed on record by it. The question then arises as to “whether the Commissioner has rightly granted `4,000/- towards monthly wages of the deceased. In this regard, the finding has been recorded that father of the deceased, who had appeared as AW6, had deposed that his deceased son was drawing a monthly salary of `2,500/- per month besides `50/- per day as daily expenses and they were all dependents upon his earning. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Commissioner, in this regard, has relied upon two decisions in the cases of Aslam Sirdar Ahmed Bepari vs. Mohd Ghouse Kutbuddin Dharwadkar and others, 1999(1) T.A.C. 397 and Mallikarjun Gundappa Patil and others Vs. Ambadas Baburao Vardekara and another, 2004(3) TAC 752, wherein it has been held that in case the employer failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding salary, then the salary claimed by the applicant be taken into consideration. In this case also, the employer has not produced on record any evidence in support of his pleading that he had FAO No.3543 of 2008 (O&M) -3- ******* engaged the deceased at the salary of `1,000/- per month besides `50/- per day as daily expenses, therefore, to my mind, there is no error committed by the learned Commissioner in assessing the income of the deceased @ `4,000/- per month on the basis of aforesaid two judgments. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 08, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE