J.P. Industries Ltd. vs Mohan Lal and Others

Nirmal Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Assistant

Labour Commissioner Kishtwar on 31.5.2000 who allowed the claim petition of respondents and awarded Rs. 1,77,400 on account of death of

Chotu Ram.

Respondents Mohan Lal and others are the legal heirs of the deceased Chotu Ram. It was pleaded that while he was working with the appellant

at work site Hasti Kishtwar on 13.8.1997, the deceased all of sudden felt severe headache and was admitted to SDH Kishtwar where he was

declared dead on 15.8.1997. It was pleaded that at the time of death, the deceased was 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 1410 per month.

The appellant contested the claim petition and filed objections pleading that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation from the

appellant as the deceased was not under its employment. At the time of illness, when the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, the Applicants

had never approached them for negotiation.

On the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner framed the following issues:

1) Whether deceased Chattu Ram was in the employment of non-applicant No. 1 and 2 on 13th August 1997 where he felt sudden severe

headache and subsequently died in Hospital on 15.8.1997.? OPP

(2) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of his untimely death? OPP.

(3) Relief.

After recording the evidence of the parties, learned Commissioner decided both the issues in favour of respondents and held that the deceased

had suffered a sudden attack during the course of employment of the appellant. It was further held that at that time of his death the deceased was

25 years of age and was receiving Rs. 1410 per month as wages and, accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,77,400 , aggrieved by which

the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. Kanwal Chopora, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record that the deceased fell ill during the

employment of the appellant-company. He contended that the deceased absented himself for 2/3 days before his illness and after that he fell ill and

was admitted in the Hospital where he breathed his last. He further contended that the respondents had not given any information to the appellant,

therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the deceased was working with the Sub-contractor. In

support of his contention learned Counsel also cited the law reported in case titled Satyabadi Nayak Vs. Damei Khilla and Others and Hontal

Damuni and Others,

The only point which has to be determined in this appeal is whether the deceased received injuries during the course of employment of the

appellant-company.

Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation and reads as under:

Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable--

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period of exceeding (three) days'

(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to--

(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or

(ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of

workmen, or

(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of

securing the safety of workmen.

Perusal of above section shows that for claiming the compensation under the above section it must be proved that there must be an injury, the

injury should have been received in an accident and thirdly the injury should have been received during the course of employment. To prove that

the deceased had received injuries during the course of employment the respondents have examined PWs Shashi Kumar, Rattan Singh and Payar

Singh.

From the evidence of claimant witnesses, Shashi Kumar, Rattan Lal and Payar Singh it is clear that deceased was on duty when all of a sudden

he felt uneasiness on 13.8.1997 at Hasti and was accordingly taken to Sub District Hospital, Kishtwar, where he died.

Where a workmen receives injuries, external or internal, during the course of his employment, due to strenuous work, the employer is liable to

pay compensation u/s 3 of the Act to the legal heirs of the deceased or to the injured workmen.

In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak 1969 ACJ, 422, the Apex Court has held as under:

The words ""in the course of the employment"" means ""in the course of the work which the workmen is employed to do and which is incidental top

it. The words ""arising' out of employment"" are understood to mean that ""during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk

incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workmen would not

otherwise have suffered"". In other words there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression ""arising out

of employment is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its

conditions, its obligations and its incidents, If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury

would be one which arises ' out of the employment'. To put it differently if the accident had occurred of a risk which is an incident of the

employment the clain for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent

act.

In the case in hand, as per the un-rebutted evidence, it has been established that the deceased was working in the tunnel where Gases generate

and the Company had not provided any mask to the labour. So from the evidence of the respondents, it has been proved that the deceased felt

uneasiness on 13.8.1997 and died in SDH Kishtwar, the deceased had died during the course of his employment, due to internal injuries received

by him. Therefore, the learned Commissioner, after taking into consideration the statement of PW Payar Singh, Sub-Contractor, that the deceased

was getting Rs. 45 per day, has rightly assessed the compensation, for which the appellant is liable to make the payment.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.