FAO No.5114 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.5114 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.07.2010 **** Kuldeep Kaur and others . . . . Appellants VS. Forest Range Officer, Samana, District Patiala and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ram Lal Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commission, Rajpura at Patiala dated 08.08.2006 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby the appellants have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,441/- towards compensation with interest on account of death of Mohinder Singh. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the wages assessed by the Commissioner should have been Rs.85/- instead of Rs.81.70 per day. On the asking of the Court as to on what basis the appellant is claiming Rs.85/-, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that minimum wages was Rs.85/- on that date but he could not support his submission with any documentary FAO No.5114 of 2008 (O&M) -2- evidence, however, while deciding the claim in para No.20 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has observed that : “The Government of Punjab has included the category of ‘forestry and logging’ at Sr. No.49 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and have fixed wags for higher, However, chowkidars, general labourer mazdoor, peon, loader & reriwala in the unemployed category. On 23.04.2002, the minimum wages fixed by the government for this is as 81.70. For 26 days work, the wages of deceased workman comes to 81.70 x 26 days = Rs.21.24.20 p. Therefore, this wage would be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation for the petitioners.” On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that deceased-workman was getting wages @ Rs.79.99 per day, which was less than the minimum wages awarded by the learned Commissioner. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Commissioner. Moreover, the appeal is also barred by delay of 637 days and there is no sufficient cause assigned in the application for condonation of delay. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 07.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek