A single bench of Justice Anoop Dhand, in an order dated Feb 4 (uploaded on Feb 9), held that the 26-day norm is based on the assumption of a six-day work week with one paid weekly off. The court observed that daily-wage workers are typically not paid for rest days and often work continuously to earn wages. It noted that such workers, who usually live hand-to-mouth, lose income when they take weekly holidays, as wages are paid only for days actually worked.Modifying the MACT award, the high court granted the claimant an additional compensation of about Rs 33,000, while keeping the remaining terms and conditions unchanged. The court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount in the claimant’s savings bank account within two months, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the claimant was a beldar (mason) but had been wrongly treated as an unskilled labourer by the tribunal. It was also argued that minimum wages were incorrectly assessed on a 26-day basis instead of a full 30-day month.The insurer opposed the plea, contending that a beldar (mason) falls in the unskilled category and that the tribunal had awarded appropriate compensation. The court also referred to labour laws mandating weekly offs and limits on working hours, noting that while no worker can be forced to work seven consecutive days, wage calculations must reflect the economic reality of daily-wage earners.
