Annual Report 2013-14 4.268 The Chief Engineer of the Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., also reported that, complying with an order from the District Magistrate, Agra, a sum of ` 80,000/- had been paid to the complainant, as her son had become totally handicapped. 4.269 The Commission in its proceedings dated 22 November 2013 observed that the amount paid was grossly inadequate for a permanent disability suffered by a boy aged 18. It was not disputed that the injury was caused when he was working at the behest of employees of the Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporation, and by their negligence. The Commission further observed that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act: i) ii) iii) iv) v) a workman is a person “employed in any such capacity as specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether the contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing”; among the occupations listed in Schedule II is “the generating, transforming, transmitting and distribution of electrical energy...’’ amputation, or the loss of the use, of both hands is taken as permanent disability for the computation of relief; for a permanent disability, the unit taken as the base for the computation of relief is 60% of the worker’s monthly wage, ` 4,000 being taken as the limit; the multiplier for a person aged 18 is 226.38. 4.270 The Commission held that employees of the Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd had contracted the complainant’s son, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, to carry out work listed in Schedule II. Work on a transformer is at the very least semi-skilled work, for which the minimum wage in Uttar Pradesh in October 2012 was ` 205.07 a day. 4.271 The Commission further observed that the compensation that the District Magistrate ordered the Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd to pay was clearly predicated on the finding that it was liable for the actions of its two employees. The Commission concurred with that assessment, but held that the Corporation had the obligation to pay the victim compensation, and to provide relief, commensurate with the gravity of the injury that he had suffered and the violation of his rights. 4.272 The Commission pointed out that the formula provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Act gives an objective basis for the computation of compensation to which the complainant’s son is entitled for injuries sustained at work. Having been engaged in work that was at least semi-skilled, he would have been entitled to wages that, in a month, would be well over ` 5,000; the limit of ` 4,000 laid down by the Act would therefore apply and the relief due would be `4,000 x 60% x 226.38, which comes to ` 543,312. NHRC | 75