[240] Parveen Ku Executive Division N Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] 17.06.1999 Act, 1923. [2] on duty on sight. He disability w proved by e [3] suited the technical that he havi IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-883 Date of De een Kumar versus utive Engineer Provincial sion No.3, ITI Chowk, Karnal. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate fo Mr. Paramjeet Singh, DAG, H **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal is dire .1999 passed by the Commissioner 1923. The claimant was employed a uty on 18.05.1996, he sustained injur . He was rendered crippled. As ility was assessed at 47%. Disability ed by examining Dr. Raj Kumar Tuli, w Respondent did not lead any e d the claimant, holding that the clai work and thus, cannot be held to e having been employed as a casual la T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 883-2000 (O&M) of Decision : 14.01.2026 …Appellant ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN cate for the appellant. G, Haryana. s directed against the Order date ioner under Workmen’s Compensatio oyed as Beldar with respondent. Whi d injuries, due to which, he lost his ey As per the medical evidence, h ability Certificate (Exhibit AW-II) wa , who appeared as AW3. any evidence. The Commissioner no he claimant was not engaged in an eld to be workman. It was further he sual labour on DC rates, he cannot be r dated ensation . While his eye ce, his ) was ner non in any her held not be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-883-2000 (O&M) -2- held to be a workman in terms of the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. [4] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused records of the case. [5] In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained. Duties of the claimant have been spelled out by respondent in written statement, which read as under:- “ xxxx xxxx xxxx the employment of the applicant was of a casual nature and he was engaged as helper to assist the booth clerk at Toll Tax Plaza (Barrier) to stop the coming/going vehicles on National Highway No.1 xxxx xxxx xxxx ” [6] Thus, the duties of the claimant are akin to Item No.(xxic-c) and (xxix-d) incorporated by way of State amendment in Schedule II of the Act. The duties being not clerical will relate to the aforesaid items. [7] Further in terms of Section 2(dd) (iii) of 1923 Act, the contract of employment can be in writing or oral, expressed or implied. Merely for the reason that the claimant was employed on daily wages at DC rates, his rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be scuttled. Since the employment is not in dispute, this Court finds that the claimant-appellant is entitled to receive compensation for permanent disability of 47% suffered by him, which is resulted in loss of vision of right eye. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-883-2000 (O&M) -3- [8] Appellant was 20 years of age at the time of accident. In terms of Schedule IV appended to the Act, the relevant factor will be 224.00. The amount of compensation payable thus is tabulated as under:- 1 Amount of compensation calculated as per Section 4(b) i.e. an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured/employee multiplied by relevant factor. 1500 x 60% = Rs.900/- 900 x 224.00 = Rs.2,01,600/- 2 Percentage of loss of earning capacity as per Schedule I Part II 2,00,000/- x 30% = Rs.60,000/- 3 Total compensation to be awarded Rs.2,61,600/- 4 Interest and penalty to be awarded in the said amount in view of Section 4A 12% for the period commencing from 30 days after the date of accident till realization. 5 Penalty 50% of 2,000,000/- = ₹1,00,000/- [9] In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. [10] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document