IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 175 of 2005() --------------------- WCC.99/1999 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT: --------------- M.GANESAN, S/O.MARUTHUGADEN KARUMKARADU, KOLLANELLY P.O., ERODE DISTRICT. ADVS. SRI.T.A.RAJAN SRI.JAYAKUMAR C.K. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.3641 OF 2005 IN M..F.A. (W.C.C.) NO.3641 175 OF 2005.\ DISMISSED 6.11.2008 Sd/-(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. (W.C.C.)NO. 175 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Southern Railway, Palakkkad challenging the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur to the respondent. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admittedly, the respondent suffered injury while in work as Gangman of the Railways. Even though injury was to a bone of his leg, treatment in the Railway hospital such as surgery, led to multiple complications making the respondent disabled in various respects. Therefore, he went to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for treatment and the doctor has certified disability at 70%. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner accepted the percentage of disability certified by the doctor and granted compensation at the rate prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.175/2005 2 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondent is not entitled to compensation because after treatment he is decategorised and given employment as caretaker of the guest house. Counsel has also relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Vanajakshan v. Joseph, 2003(2) K.L.T. 462 and contended that so long as there is no loss of earning, the respondent is not entitled to compensation. However, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant because it is in evidence that as Gangman, the respondent had prospects in career for promotion whereas after the injury, he is found medically unfit and is decategorised from his technical job and put as caretaker of the guest house, a post which has no promotion prospects. Loss of promotion prospects on decategorisation will entitle the respondent for loss of earning power. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and dismiss the appeal. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE (HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE sp/ M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.175/2005 3 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A.(WCC)NO.175/05 JUDGMENT 6th November, 2008 M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.175/2005 4