LAWYERS who spoke to The New Paper said workers usually get more compensation if they take their employers to court.

This is because the courts allow damages to be paid for a worker's 'suffering and pain' while the Work Injury Compensation Act does not.

One example is that of Mr Heng Yeow Pheow, who was killed in the Nicoll Highway collapse along with three others on 20 Apr 2004.

The MOM offered compensation of up to $111,000 to the four victims.

But Mr Heng's widow, Madam Poa Beng Hong, sued the contractor, Nishimatsu-Lum Chang JV, and got $410,000 in a settlement.

Employees doing manual work or those earning under $1,600 a month are entitled to compensation if injured or killed.

Lawyer PE Ashokan of KhattarWong said: 'MOM's assessment is on a no-fault basis. Regardless of whether the employer is negligent or not, the worker will be compensated as long as he's injured.

'It's a trade-off because it's a faster process as the worker doesn't need to show the employer was at fault.'

The Work Injury Act also caps the claim for medical expenses at $25,000. Claims for incapacity range from $60,000 to $180,000.

Mr Ashokan said the MOM's assessment for incapacity would depend on the worker's age and earning capacity.

Damages awarded by courts do not have any cap.

But another lawyer, MsAnuradha Tiwary of Vision Law LLC, cautioned that workers should not be quick to take legal action.

She said: 'When you go to court, the onus is on you to show that the employer was negligent.

'It's a risk you take, because if you lose, you have to pay your employer's legal costs, on top of not getting anything.'

This article was first published in The New Paper on Nov 1, 2008.