IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 1132 of 2002() ---------------------- WCC.301/1995 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: APPLICANT IN W.C.CASE NO.301/95: ------------- C.V. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KANARAN, CHERIYA VALAPPIL HOUSE, ICE ROAD, VADAKARA, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES IN W.C. CASE NO.301/95: ----------------- 1. K.C. KANNAN, (EXPIRED), KANDIYIL CHERIYA VEEDU, MANOHAR GLASS MART, VADAKARA. * 2. C.K. SARADHA, W/O. LATE KANNAN KANDIYIL CHERIYA VEEDU, VADAKARA, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (2nd RESPONDENT DIED AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT, AS PER ORDER, DT. 29.2.2008, VIDE MEMO, C.F.3410/08) 3. SON, MOHANARAJ, DO. DO. 4. BROTHER, PREMAN, DO. DO. MFA.No.1132/2002 : 2 : 5. BROTHER, KRISHNADAS, DO. DO. 6. BROTHER, MANOJAN, DO. DO. 7. BROTHER, JANARADHANAN, DO. DO. 8. SISTER, SUJATHA, DO. DO. 9. SISTER, SUCHITHRA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1132 of 2002 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The workman, whose application has been allowed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode, has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. Though the opposite party denied the employer employee relationship, the same was proved. The employer produced registers to show that the appellant was getting Rs.910/= as wages. Even according to the appellant, his monthly salary was only Rs.1350/= per month. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the appellant ought to have been paid Rs.1008/=. Whether the appellant was paid the Minimum Wages Act is not a question to be considered in this proceedings. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was getting Rs.910/= per month. That is a pure question of fact. So, there is nothing to interfere with the order. The appeal is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1132 of 2002 J U D G M E N T Dated: 24th March, 2008. -------------------------------