Divisional Forest Officer, Kendu Leaves vs Chaitanya Sahu and Another

Pradip Mohanty, J.—This is an application u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') challenging the order dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation (Dhenkanal), Angul, in W. C. Case No. 21 of 1992.

The case of the claimants-respondents is that their son, deceased Dhaneswar Sahu, died on 21.9.1991 in course of his employment due to lightening shock while he was working under the Divisional Forest Officer, Kendu Leaves, Athamallik. The deceased is stated to have engaged as a binder of Kanteikolia Phadi under the Hondapa Kendu Leaves Range of Athamaflik. On the same day at 6. 20 P.M. the Range Officer (KL), Handapa Range, Lodged FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Handapa Police Station and the same was registered as U.D.P.S. Case No. 7 of 1991. The legal heirs of the deceased had filed W. C. Case No. 21 of 1992 before the Workmen Commissioner and prayed for compensation due to death of the only earning member of the family in course of his employment.

The case of the opposite-party-appellant, in the written statement, is that the deceased was not engaged by the opposite party nor by any of his officers, but he was engaged by one Ratnakar Sahu, binding-mate to assist him in the binding works, since the same could not be done alone. It is further stated in the written statement that the deceased died due to natural calamity i.e. lightening near a Nala not in the binding centre, and it is further stated that the binding work was completed at Analaberini Phadi on 20.9.91 and again it was started on 29.9.91.

In order to prove their case the claimants-respondents have examined as many as two witnesses and the opposite party-appellant has examined one witness only, i.e. the Ex-Range Officer.

After considering the evidence on record and documents produced by both the sides, the Workmen''s Commissioner came to the conclusion that deceased Dhaneswar Sahu was engaged as a binder on 29.1.1991 at Kanteikolia Phadi and he died due to lightening in course of his employment. The Commissioner, by his order dated 24.1.97 awarded compensation of Rs. 67,200/- to the respondents-claimants. He further directed the opposite party-appellant to deposit the said amount towards compensation through a Bank Draft and in default to pay the same within the stipulated date, the opposite party-appellant would be liable to pay penalty and interest u/s 4(A)3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

Mr. Das, learned additional Standing Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the deceased was not coming under the purview of ''workman'' as envisaged u/s 2(N) of the Act. He further submitted that the work of Analaberini Phadi was completed on 20.9.91 and again the binding work started in Kanteikolia Phadi on 29.9.91. Therefore, the claim of the claimants-respondents that deceased Dhaneswar Sahu was a ''workman'', ought not to have accepted by the Commissioner and as such the award is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Nandi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the FIR dated 21.9.91 lodged by the employer and the police report clearly reveal that deceased Dhaneswar on the very day of the occurrence was engaged as a binder. While he was working in the said Phadi he went for bath and immediately after he returned to resume his unfinished work of binding the occurrence took place. He further submitted that on 21.9.91 the said binding work was not closed as revealed from Ext. A, which was produced by the opp. party. Therefore, Mr. Nandi submits that death of the deceased was in course of his employment as a labourer and thus, he comes under the provisions of Section 2(N) of the Act.

The short question of this appeal as to whether the accident took place in course of employment of deceased Dhaneswar or not, is the question of fact which is not available to be challenged in appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of this Court reported in Divisional Manager, S.E. Railway and Another Vs. P. Vijayaratnam, , This Court in the said decision has held that the finding to the effect that the deceased was a workman under the appellant and had succumbed to injuries in an accident arising out and in course of employment is essentially a finding of fact and is not available to be challenged in appeal.

Now coming to the case at hand, the evidence on record reveals that the deceased was engaged as binder and while he was working in Kanteikolia Phadi, he went for bath and while he was returning to Phadi to attend to his unfinished works, the accident occurred. Further, the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and O.P.W. 1 and the documents Exts. 1 and 2 and Ext. A clearly show that the deceased was doing the binding works on 21.9.91 and in course of his employment the accident occurred. Therefore, in view of such evidence and the decision of this Court referred to above, this Court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner that the accident arose out of and in course of employment.

The quantum to compensation awarded by the Commissioner having not been challenged before this Court, that does not necessitate the Court to discuss the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award of the Workmen''s Commissioner.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.