MR. JANARDAN AGARWAL CHAIRMAN AND ANR. v. MR. RAJKUMAR BRIJLAL SINGH GOND
Finality of Commissioner's Findings on Functional Disability and Affirmation of Interest Liability from the Date of Accident under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9124
Decision Date: 23-02-2026
List of Laws
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; Section 4A(3) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; Labour Law; Assessment of Functional Disability
- Facts: The respondent (original applicant) sustained serious injuries, including a head injury and multiple rib fractures, during an accident that occurred while working for the appellant company on 17 February 2015. Despite returning to work in April 2015, the respondent claimed 100% functional disability due to severe chronic pain and an inability to perform his duties effectively. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation evaluated the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries, ultimately awarding compensation based on a 50% functional disability and directing that interest be paid from the date of the accident.
- Procedural Posture: This is a First Appeal filed by the employer under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the order dated 21 November 2017 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
- Issue: The core legal questions involved (i) whether the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment; (ii) whether the Commissioner was justified in determining functional disability at 50% when a medical certificate suggested 38% and the employee had resumed work; and (iii) whether interest on the compensation should be calculated from the date of the accident or only after the expiry of one month from the date of the accident.
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. It affirmed that interest is payable from the date of the accident and that the determination of functional disability is a question of fact based on evidence.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that since the employer admitted the accident occurred during employment, that issue became a pure question of fact. Regarding disability, the Court noted that "functional disability" is distinct from "medical disability" and is determined by the Commissioner based on the totality of evidence, including the impact on the worker's earning capacity; therefore, it does not constitute a substantial question of law. On the issue of interest, the Court interpreted Section 4A(3) of the EC Act to mean that while the employer has a one-month grace period to pay without penalty, the liability to pay interest is triggered by the default and relates back to the date the compensation fell due, which is the date of the accident. The Court clarified that the Act contains no provision stating interest should only be calculated after the expiry of the one-month grace period.
🔒 For Members Only