Award Under Workmen's Compensation Act Doesn't Preclude Reliefs Under Disabilities Act: Kerala High Court

The Court observed the Chief Commissioner under the PWD cannot finally adjudicate upon the right of the employee to claim compensation. The Court also stated that the employers cannot deny the benefits to an employee under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 (PWD) stating that compensation has already been granted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

A division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran held thus:

“That apart, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides compensation for injury caused by an accident arising out of or during the course of employment, whereas PWD Act affords protection of rights and full participation of persons with disabilities. Both occupies different fields and the remedy availed in one cannot preclude the remedy under the other enactment.”

The Court made the following observations whilst considering whether the adjudication made by the Disability Commissioner under the PWD Act was final and binding and secondly, whether the employee can seek for further benefits under the PWD Act since he has already received reliefs under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Background Facts

The employee suffered an electric shock during the course of his employment in the year 2005. He suffered serious burn injuries and was under treatment. The employee was relieved from service and paid full salary up to 2007. The Commissioner of Workman’s Compensation paid settlement amount to the employee in 2009. In 2010, the Medical Board issued disability certificate to the employee certifying seventy per cent disability. The employee approached the Disability Commissioner in 2014 seeking disability benefits under the PWD Act. This was denied to the employee stating that he cannot claim benefits prior to the date of issuance of disability certificate in 2010. The employee passed away in the year 2019.

The legal heirs of the deceased approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with an original application claiming arrears of salary and other benefits from of the deceased employee deeming him to be in service till the date of his death under the PWD Act. The Tribunal allowed this and the petitioners who were the employers of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited have challenged it before the High Court.

The Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate V Krishna Menon argued that the deceased cannot claim benefits under the PWD Act as he has already exhausted the remedy and that the order of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has become final. It was submitted that he was relieved from services and all retiral benefits were disbursed. The petitioners also contended that pursuant to an agreement, the employee received settlement amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act and that he was estopped from claiming further benefits under the PWD Act.

The counsel for the respondents, Advocate K C Vincent argued that the order of the Disability Commissioner under the PWD Act was only on factual aspects and not final. It was also submitted that the Disability Commissioner was not an adjudicatory body and cannot determine issues of compensation under PWD Act. It was also argued that the employee cannot be denied benefits under the PWD Act stating that he was given relief under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Findings of the Court

The Court examined the provisions of the PWD Act and held that an employee who acquires a disability during the service have to be kept on a supernumerary post until the age of superannuation. The Court considered the powers of the Disability Commissioner under the PWD Act and examined the term ‘adjudication’:

“It could thus be seen that an adjudication is the final determination of the rights of the parties, so as to render a binding decision, no matter we call it judgment, order or otherwise. It is a legal process of resolution of a dispute, or in other words, a solemn or deliberate determination by the judicial power. It ordinarily involves a trial, consideration of legal evidence and an opportunity of hearing to the parties.”

The Court concluded that the Disability Commissioner under the PWD Act does not have the power to adjudicate the rights between the parties, rather it can only look into the complaints and take it up with appropriate authorities. The Court stated that even according to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Commissioner can only make recommendations to the authorities and not carry adjudication. Thus, the Court held that the Disability Commissioner under PWD cannot assume the powers of a Court to finally adjudicate the rights between the parties regarding compensation.

“For the mere reason that certain powers of a civil court is bestowed upon the authorities under the Act, that too for the limited purpose of an effective discharge of their functions, would not clothe the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner with the trappings of a civil court. Nor would there conclusions, as in Annexure-A9, would assume the legal character of a judgment/order binding inter-parties.”

Regarding the settlement amount paid to the employee, the Court observed that Section 72 of the PWD Act stipulates that the Act was in addition to and not in derogation of any other law conferring benefits on persons with disabilities. Thus, the Court held that the employers cannot deny benefits to the employee under the PWD Act stating that compensation has been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Further, the Court relied upon various Apex Court decisions to state that the PWD Act was a beneficial legislation and has to be interpreted after understanding the object and purpose of the statute. It held that the employee has to be retained in service on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or till the age of superannuation.

Thus, the Court found that the petitioners were bound to pay arrears of salary and other benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased employee deeming him in service till the date of his superannuation.

Case title: Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. V Lissiama James