# Kaptan Singh & Anr v. Sri Raj Narayan & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-09
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1360 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaptan-singh-anr-v-sri-raj-narayan-anr-45210
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 - Section 4(1B) - maximum
income to be computed for the purposes
of compensation - the Central Government
may,
by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette, specify, for the purposes of subsection (1), such monthly wages in
relation to an employee as it may consider
necessary - effect of the notification is not
retrospective
but
prospective
.(Para2,3,5,6)

Claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the
Commissioner - ground - income of the
deceased construed at Rs. 8,000/- (eight
thousand rupees) per month - drawing a salary
to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand
rupees) - tribunal not taken the income @
minimum wages as applicable on the date of the
accident for a skilled labourer i.e., @ Rs.
9,873.08/-
(nine
thousand
eight
hundred
seventy three rupees and eight paise) per
month.(Para-6)

HELD:- In the present case, accident took
place on 17.06.2019 and therefore, cap of Rs.
8,000/- (eight thousand rupees) per month as
prescribed by the Central Government vide S.O.
1258(E) dated 31st May, 2010 fixing monthly
wages @ Rs. 8,000/- (eight thousand rupees)
per month will be applicable .There is no
illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award
in
not
computing
the
minimum
wages
prescribed by the State Government for the
purpose of calculation of compensation.(Para -
6)

First appeal from order dismissed. ( E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

10 All. Kaptan Singh & Anr. Vs. Sri Raj Narayan & Anr.
311
in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, for
a period of 5 years, giving highest rate of
interest. The interest payable on this
amount shall be released on quarterly basis
to her. On maturity of the fixed deposit, the
maturity proceeds will be paid to her.

The Tribunal shall keep the entire
amount awarded to the minor son in a fixed
deposit in a nationalised bank, for a period
of 5 years, giving highest rate of interest.
The interest payable on this amount shall
be released on quarterly basis to the mother
of the child. The Tribunal shall keep
renewing the amount on these terms till the
minor attains majority.

15. In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the above extent.

16. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.

17. The record of the case shall be
sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
----------
(2020)10ILR A311
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

FAFO No. 1360 of 2020

Kaptan Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Raj Narayan & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

(A) Civil Law - Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 - Section 4(1B) - maximum
income to be computed for the purposes
of compensation - the Central Government
may,
by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette, specify, for the purposes of subsection (1), such monthly wages in
relation to an employee as it may consider
necessary - effect of the notification is not
retrospective
but
prospective
.(Para2,3,5,6)

Claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the
Commissioner - ground - income of the
deceased construed at Rs. 8,000/- (eight
thousand rupees) per month - drawing a salary
to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand
rupees) - tribunal not taken the income @
minimum wages as applicable on the date of the
accident for a skilled labourer i.e., @ Rs.
9,873.08/-
(nine
thousand
eight
hundred
seventy three rupees and eight paise) per
month.(Para-6)

HELD:- In the present case, accident took
place on 17.06.2019 and therefore, cap of Rs.
8,000/- (eight thousand rupees) per month as
prescribed by the Central Government vide S.O.
1258(E) dated 31st May, 2010 fixing monthly
wages @ Rs. 8,000/- (eight thousand rupees)
per month will be applicable .There is no
illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award
in
not
computing
the
minimum
wages
prescribed by the State Government for the
purpose of calculation of compensation.(Para -
6)

First appeal from order dismissed. ( E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Kerala State Electricity Board & ors. Vs
Valsala K. & ors. , (1999) 8 SCC 254

2. K. Shivaraman & ors. Vs P. Sathishkumar &
anr. , (2020) 4 SCC 594

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2. This FAFO has been filed by the
claimants being aggrieved by the award
dated
14.08.2020
passed
by
the
Commissioner
under
the
Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 at Kanpur only on
the ground that the income of the deceased
has been construed at Rs. 8,000/- (eight
thousand rupees) per month whereas he
was drawing a salary to the tune of Rs.
12,000/- (twelve thousand rupees), but
learned tribunal has not even taken the
income @ minimum wages as applicable
on the date of the accident for a skilled
labourer i.e., @ Rs. 9,873.08/- (nine
thousand eight hundred seventy three
rupees and eight paise) per month.
However, taking into consideration the cap
provided
under
the
Employees
Compensation Act on the maximum
income to be computed for the purposes of
compensation
at
Rs.
8,000/-
(eight
thousand rupees) per month, compensation
has been calculated taking income at Rs.
8,000/- (eight thousand rupees) per month
and not even @ of minimum wages
prescribed by the State Government for a
skilled labourer.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
though vehemently submits that wages
should have been computed at least at the
minimum wages prescribed by the State
authorities, but is not in a position to
dispute the fact that an amendment was
affected in Section 4 (1B) of the
Employees'
Compensation
Act,
1923
whereby it is provided that "the Central
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes
of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in
relation to an employee as it may consider
necessary."

4. The Central Government has
specified for the purpose of sub-section (1),
"Eight thousand rupees" as monthly wages,
vide S.O. 1258(E), dated 31st May, 2010. It
is true that vide Gazette Notification
published in the Gazette of India dated 3rd
January, 2020, S.O. 71(E) has been issued
whereby in exercise of its authority
provided
under
Section
4(1)(B),
the
notification dated 31st May, 2010 has been
revised and the monthly wages, with effect
from the date of publication of the
notification in the Official Gazette has been
enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand
rupees).

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
K.
Shivaraman
and
Others
vs.
P.
Sathishkumar and Another as reported in
2020 (4) SCC 594 has held that the effect
of the notification is not retrospective but
prospective inasmuch as the amendments
enhancing the compensation payable under
the 1923 Act confer a benefit upon
employees, a corresponding burden is
imposed on employers to pay a higher rate
of compensation.

6. In case of Kerala State Electricity
Board and Others vs. Valsala K. and
Others as reported in 1999 (8) SCC 254, it
has been held that the benefit of an
amendment,
enhancing
the
rate
of
compensation does not have retrospective
application to accidents that took place
prior to coming into force of the
amendment. Admittedly, in the present
case, accident took place on 17.06.2019
and therefore, cap of Rs. 8,000/- (eight
thousand rupees) per month as prescribed
by the Central Government vide S.O.
1258(E) dated 31st May, 2010 fixing
monthly wages @ Rs. 8,000/- (eight
thousand rupees) per month will be
applicable and therefore, there is no
10 All. Rishik Lavania & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned
award in not computing the minimum
wages prescribed by the State Government
for
the
purpose
of
calculation
of
compensation.

7. Therefore, F.A.F.O. deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 385 of 2020

Rishik Lavania & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prashant Shukla, Sri Ram Prakash
Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Vineet Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6 - natural
guardian of a hindu minor - Section 6(a) - in
the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the
father, and after him ,the mother: provided
that the custody of a minor who has not
completed the age of five years shall
ordinarily be with the mother - Guardians
and Wards Act,1890 - Section 25 - child
custody .

Child stays with her mother and in her care and
custody - mother is a dentist and a well educated
woman - She is capable of earning her livelihood,
even if for the present, she does not have a job in
her home town of Agra - mother and the father
are both natural guardians under Section 6(a) of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
(Para-2,7)

HELD:- If the mother's custody cannot be held
unlawful, there is no scope for this Court to issue a
writ of habeas corpus ordering the custody of the
minor to be hands-changed from the mother to
the father. If the father thinks that he has a better
right to the minor's custody, it is open to him to
bring a duly constituted application under Section
25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, or some other
provision of the said statute, as may be
advised.(Para - 4,7)

Habeas corpus petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

Tejaswini Gaud & ors. Vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad
Tewari & ors., (2019) 7 SCC 42

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. In compliance with the rule nisi
issued by this Court vide order dated
16.09.2020, the minor Rishik Lavania has
been produced before this Court by Sub
Inspector Amit Prasad, posted at P.S.
Hariparvat, District Agra. Along with the
minor, the mother Dr. Smt. Akanksha
Vashishth has also appeared. The minor has
been identified before this Court by the Sub
Inspector who has brought him here. Smt.
Akanksha Vashishth, has appeared in
compliance
with
the
order
dated
31.08.2020 where it was left elective for
her. She has been identified before this
Court by Sri Vinit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos. 3, 4 and 5. He has also filed a short
counter affidavit. It is taken on record. A
supplementary affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner which is also taken
on record. Now, that master Rishik Lavania
is present in Court along with his mother,
Smt. Dr. Akanksha Vashishth, both of them
being identified, this Court considers it
appropriate for a just disposal of this rule
nisi to record the mother's stand in the
matter. The Court, accoringly, proceeds to