Executive Engineer & Ors. vs Ab.Jabar Khan & Anr.

Respondent no. 1, working as lineman posted in Sub Division, Wagoora, during his duty at receiving station, Putkhah Magam while clearing the

fault in the transmission line received an electric shock which resulted in amputation of his right upper limb (arm), filed petition for compensation

before the Assistant Commissioner, Labour under Workmen's Compensation Act. The proceedings culminated in passing the award dated

23.12.2006 to the tune of Rs. 2,50,320/ as against the claim of Rs. 7.00 lacs.

By the medium of this appeal award (judgment) is assailed.

Heard, Considered.

Admit.

With the consensus of the appearing counsel for the parties taken up for final disposal, as three legal points have been raised for adjudication:

Firstly, that the respondent no.1 does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Secondly, that the amputation of right upper limb (arm) has not affected the earning capacity of the respondent.

Thirdly section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act hereinafter called as the 'Act' provides that the appeal cannot lie against any order unless

'substantial question of law' is involved in the appeal.

According to appearing counsel for the appellants, aforesaid legal points are substantial questions of law involved, so appeal is maintainable.

The first point as to whether respondent no. 1 being employee falls within the definition of workman is no more resintegra. Subsection 1 of

section 2 clause (n) defines the workman which is to be read with schedule II of the Act Serial (ix) and (xix) of the schedule II reads as under:

The following persons are workmen within the meaning of section 2 (1) (n) and subject to the provision of that section, that is to say, any person

who is

(ix) employed in setting up, maintaining repairing or taling down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or, cable or

standard or fitting and fixtures, for the same,

(xix) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in the generating, transforming transmitting or distribution of electrical energy or in generation

or supply of gas.

The plain reading of aforesaid section clearly indicates that the lineman falls within the definition of workman. Same view has been taken by the

Coordinate Bench in the judgment titled Chief Engineer and anr. Vs. Abdul Majid Mir and anr. reported in 2006 (II) SLJ 696.

The Second point as highlighted is that the respondent no.1 being the employee of the Electric Department gets full salary and continues to be in

the employment. Further more, has been paid Rs. 1.00 lac out of Janta Insurance Scheme and has also been paid Rs. 200/ as conveyance

allowance, therefore, respondent no. 1 is not entitled to any compensation. This submission is only to be rejected. The learned Commissioner

under the 'Act' has threadbare discussed the whole controversy issuewise and thereafter rightly concluded that the amputation of right upper limb

(arm), is a permanent disability and such type of disability is covered by clause 3, partII of schedule 1, as such loss in earning capacity suffered by

the petitioner is 70% while relying on the judgments Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. Vs. Raman Nair, 1998 ACJ 869 Kerala and Management of

Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.N. Yayapalan, 1994, ILLJ, 830 Madras. Learned Commissioner has held that even if, there was no

loss of earning capacity but still compensation is awardable under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act.

It is an admitted fact that the respondent no. 1 will continue to receive the salary but his capacity of earning otherwise is reduced. He can be of

great help in domestic affairs while doing work at home during nonofficial working hours or holidays. He can do the various works a t home but

with the amputation of the right upper limb (arm) he could not do anything. The compensation as awardable under Workmen's Compensation Act

has the welfare object to be achieved. The question is to be answered in affirmative i.e. is not respondent expected to do the agriculture

husbandry. The respondent no. 1 being the workman is entitled to the compensation in terms of the 'Act' and it is in that background the

compensation has been assessed and the total amount of Rs. 2,50,320/ has been calculated, rightly so, no interference is warranted.

The judgment/award is up held. Appeal is found devoid of merit so is dismissed. The awarded amount which pursuant to order of this court has

been deposited vide cheque bearing No. B489149 dated 04.06.2008 shall be released alongwith interest as may have accrued in favour of

respondent No. 1 after proper identification and on proper receipt.

Disposed of as above alongwith connected CMP.