IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 MFA.No. 162 of 2009(C) ------------------------ WCC.177/2002 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., S.R.ESTATE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------------------ SUDHAKARAN, S/O.ARU, PRAVEEN NIVAS, CHOORAMALA, VELLARMALA POST, MEPPADI, VYTHIRI. ADV. CELINE JOSEPH FOR R1 ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 162 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the employer in W.C.C. 177/02. The workman sustained an employment injury and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded him a compensation of Rs.56,179/- with 12% interest from the date of accident. The management aggrieved by that decision has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the both the sides. It is submitted that the amount given for temporary disablement of Rs.2,578.70 has not been correct. There is no dispute regarding the disability assessed but the dispute is with respect to the way in which the wages had been worked out. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me that the methodology to be adopted in finding out the wages is to take the sum total for the period M.F.A.. 162 OF 2009 -:2:- of one year and divide it by 12 and then proceed in accordance with law. What the authority had done is to take into consideration the number of days worked and then multiply and divide which will be certainly on the higher side. Explanation to S.5(c) makes it very clear that so far as the calculation of the continuity of the period is concerned if there is a brake of 14 days or more then the continuity will get split up and that employment cannot be taken as continuous. Ext.R9 reveals certain factors. But it has not been considered by the Compensation Commissioner. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration regarding the way and the provision under which the wages is to be calculated and found out. So far as the interest is concerned now it is settled that interest has to be paid from the date of accident as has been held by two Division Benches of this Court after following the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Pratap NarainSingh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222). Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted M.F.A.. 162 OF 2009 -:3:- back to the Compensation Commissioner for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the discussions made above. The parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. 50% of the amount which is in deposit be disbursed to the applicant in the case. The Compensation Commissioner shall fix a date of appearance and give notice to the parties to appear before it. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-