Supreme Court: Unfair To Classify Carpenter As Unskilled Worker; Carpentry Is Skilled Job

A carpenter is somebody who uses wood and constructs

objects for daily use or beauty or in certain countries

even housing. A normal person who is not trained in the

craft certainly cannot undertake these activities with

the level of precision that is required. It would be

unfair then, to classify a carpenter as an unskilled

worker. We may also notice observations of this Court in

State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty 1995 Supp

(1)SCC 470, wherein while speaking of the definition of

an artisan reference has been to the Blacks Law

Dictionary which terms an artisan as a person who is

skilled in a trade, craft or art requiring manual

dexterity. In the examples given thereunder, features

the word ‘carpenter’. Further, in Neeta v. Maharashtra

SRTC (2015) 3 SCC 590 it was observed that carpentry is a

skilled job. {Para 7}

8. That being the case, the minimum wages as applied to

skilled persons is to be taken for the purpose of

calculation of compensation, as on the relevant date

would be Rs.8337.10. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2025

(@ Special Leave Petition(C) No.27556 OF 2023)

KARAMJIT SINGH  Vs AMANDEEP SINGH & ANR.

Dated: DECEMBER 17, 2024.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated

24.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana, at Chandigarh in FAO No. 4283 of 2017 between

the self-same parties which in turn was filed against

findings returned by judgment and order dated 11.01.2017

in MACT Case No.299/13.11.2014.

3. The claimant-appellant, on 27.09.2014 while riding

his motorcycle along with his son Dilpreet Singh, who was

the pillion rider suffered a collision with the vehicle

of the respondent no.1 bearing registration no. PB-12-

R(T)7535 and suffered injuries in right arm and leg as

well as other parts of the body. An FIR bearing

no.178/2014 u/Ss 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC 1860 was

registered at P.S. Chamkaur Sahib, District Rup Nagar. As

2

a result of the injuries suffered, he underwent surgery

and treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and subsequently at

Sangh Hospital, Ropar. Ultimately, his right arm was

amputated on 21.10.2014.

4. A true copy of the Claim Petition is Annexure P-2.

Compensation claimed was to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-

with an additional Rs.4,00,000/- spent on treatment. By

an award dated 11.01.2017 the learned MACT granted

compensation totalling Rs.6,84,582/-. The Insurance

Company of Respondent No.1 was directed to pay the said

amount within two months of the award, failing which

interest shall be payable at 6% p.a. from the date of

filing of the claim petition.

5. Both the parties preferred appeals before the High

Court, which were disposed by the common impugned

judgment. In the appeal by the present appellant, the

High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,26,600/-.

The itemized break-down of this amount is as under: -

1. Loss of future earnings Rs.6,21,600/-

2. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-

3. Treatment and medicine charges Rs.60,000/-

4. Transportation charges Rs.15,000/-

5. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/-

6. Special diet and nursing charges Rs.10,000/-

7. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-

8. Loss of income during treatment Rs.15,000/-

Total Rs.8,26,600/-

6. Further aggrieved by this determination, the

claimant-appellant is before us. The Tribunal took the

earning of the claimant-appellant as Rs.5000/- per month,

whereas in the claim petition, the monthly income of the

claimant-appellant has been shown as Rs.25,000/-. A

perusal of the award shows that however little, if any,

discussion had been made as to the source of livelihood

of the claimant-appellant who was apparently a carpenter.

That being the case, we have no option but to take, for

the purposes of calculation the minimum wages as

prevalent during the relevant time issued by the Office

of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab.

7. A carpenter is somebody who uses wood and constructs

objects for daily use or beauty or in certain countries

even housing. A normal person who is not trained in the

craft certainly cannot undertake these activities with

the level of precision that is required. It would be

unfair then, to classify a carpenter as an unskilled

worker. We may also notice observations of this Court in

State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty 1995 Supp

(1)SCC 470, wherein while speaking of the definition of

an artisan reference has been to the Blacks Law

Dictionary which terms an artisan as a person who is

skilled in a trade, craft or art requiring manual

dexterity. In the examples given thereunder, features

the word ‘carpenter’. Further, in Neeta v. Maharashtra

SRTC (2015) 3 SCC 590 it was observed that carpentry is a

skilled job.

8. That being the case, the minimum wages as applied to

skilled persons is to be taken for the purpose of

calculation of compensation, as on the relevant date

would be Rs.8337.10. The percentage of disability is

74%. The calculation would now be as under:-

Loss of future earnings at

74% disability

Rs.8337 x 74% = Rs.6,169.45

Annual loss of earning Rs. 6,169.45 x 12 = Rs.74,033.4

Applying multiplier of 14 Rs.74,033.4 x 14 = Rs.10,36,467.6

Future prospect as per

National Insurance Company

vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16

SCC page 680 = 25%.

Rs.8337.10 x 12 x 14 x 25% = Rs.3,50,158.

9. Final compensation computed is as under: -

Sl.No. Heads Compensation

awarded by MACT

High Court Final

compensation

1. Loss of

future

earning

6,21,000/- 6,21,000/- 10,36,467/-

2. Treatment and

Medical

charges

52,982/- 60,000/- 60,000/-

3. Pain and

Suffering

10,000/- 60,000/- 60,000/-

5

4. Loss of

Income during

treatment

N/A 15,000/- 15,000/-

5. Attendant

Charges

N/A 15,000/- 15,000/-

6. Special Diet

and Nursing

N/A 10,000/- 10,000/-

7. Transportatio

n Charges

N/A 15,000/- 15,000/-

8. Loss of

Amenities

N/A 30,000/- 30,000/-

9. Future

Prospect

N/A N/A 3,50,158/-

10. TOTAL 6,83,982/- 8,26,000/- 15,91, 625/-

11. Interest 6% p.a. 6% p.a. 7.5% p.a.

10. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The

award of the Tribunal as modified by the High Court is

further modified in terms of the Final Compensation

column above.

Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

……………………………………J.

(MANMOHAN)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 17, 2024

Print Page