The Management of Injipara Estate vs Thyilammal

R. Banumathi, J.—Aggrieved by the Order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarding compensation of Rs. 1,05,377/- to the

Respondent/Claimant for the death of her husband Arjunan, the Management has preferred this Appeal.

The Respondent''s husband Arjunan, a Worker bearing Roll No. 4407 of N.C.Division of Injiparai Estate, Valparai, was employed by the

Applicant-Management. The case of the Respondent/Claimant is that her husband Arjunan along with others were sleeping at the residential

quarters allotted by the Management of Injiparai Estate. In the midnight between 29.12.1998 and 30.12.1998 the back door was loudly knocked

and when the back door was opened, he saw few wild Elephants standing there. The deceased Arjunan had loudly called others and at that time,

the Elephant got wild and are said to have thrown a water pot with water and attacked the deceased Arjunan. The deceased Arjunan is said to

have sustained injuries on his forehead and he fell down and he became unconscious. When the Pharmacist checked Arjunan, he was declared

dead. Stating that Arjunan died during the course of his employment and that the Respondent/Claimant is entitled to compensation as per amended

Section 16A and 16B of Plantations Labour Act, the wife of the deceased Arjunan has filed the Application claiming compensation of Rs.

1,31,350/-.

The Appellant-Management contested the Application contending that the Arjunan died of heart attack in his house allotted by the Management

and the same was reported to the Estate Pharmacist as per the existing practice and it was never reported that Arjunan was attacked by the wild

Elephant. Arjunan was aged 60 years and that he was about to get superannuation on 31.12.1998. As such, there was no collapse of the door or

roof of the house and therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to claim compensation u/s 16A(1) of Plantations Labour Act.

Accepting the evidence of the Respondent/Claimant, the learned Deputy Commissioner has held that the accident arose out of and during the

course of employment. Fixing the monthly wages of Arjunan at Rs. 1,778/-, the learned Deputy Commissioner has ordered compensation at Rs.

1,05,377/-.

The C.M.A. was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : i.Whether the Application for compensation filed by the Respondent

was maintainable in terms of Section 3 of Workmen''s Compensation Act ? ii.Was the death of the Respondent''s husband due to accident arising

out of and in the course of his employment under the Appellant ? iii.Is the claim of the Respondent maintainable u/s 16A of the Plantations Labour

Act ?

Laying emphasis upon the expression ""arising out of and in the course of his employment"" u/s 3 of Workmen''s Compensation Act, the learned

Counsel for the Appellant-Management Mr.John Zachariah has contended that the accident occurred on the midnight of 29.12.1998 cannot be

construed as arising out of and in the course of his employment. Drawing the attention of the Court to the alleged letters given by the wife and son

of deceased Workman Arjunan, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Management has submitted that mere dying of heart attack would not be

sufficient to bring the accident within the purview of Section 3 of the Act. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the deceased workman

cannot be construed as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(h) of Plantations Labour Act. Contending that mere dying of heart attack

unless proved to be arising out of stress and strain no compensation could be awarded the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Management has

placed reliance upon the decisions reported in Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another, and 2007 LLR 185 (Shakuntala

Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr.).

Countering the arguments the learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. S.N. Ravichandran has submitted that the death was due to shock as a

result of seeing the Elephant, which is incidental to the Employment and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has rightly awarded the

compensation. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that on the basis of evidence of P.W.2, the Deputy Commissioner

has rightly awarded the compensation and the same does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

I have carefully examined the materials on record and the rival contentions. The Claimant''s husband Arjunan was admittedly employed in

Injipara Estate and residing in the Quarters in Injipara Estate. Admittedly, late Arjunan was residing within the Estate. He was employed for the

purpose of Plantation Work. He was due to retire on superannuation on 30.12.1998. In her evidence, P.W.1 has categorically stated that on the

fateful day, there was a wild knock at the back door of the house and on opening of the door, they have found that the house was surrounded by

wild Elephants. When the deceased Arjunan and the inmates of the house tried to come out of the house, one Elephant thrashed the water pot and

hit against the forehead of the deceased worker Arjunan, due to which, he died of shock.

Contending that the accident was on the midnight of 29.12.1998, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Management has contended that the

expression ""arising out of and in the course of his employment"" cannot be extended to its illogical ends so as to cover the accident on the midnight

of 29.12.1998. This contention does not merit acceptance.

In various cases of the Supreme Court and High Courts, there has been a good deal of discussion on the meaning of ""Phrases"" - ""arising out of

and in the course of his employment"" appearing in Section 3 of Workmen''s Compensation Act. The significant principles are as follows:

(1) There must be connection (casual) between injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.

(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.

(3) It is not necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of death.

(4) If it satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personnel injury it would be enough for the workman to succeed .

Whether or not the accident arising in the course of employment would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present

case, staying in the residential quarters of the Estate is an incident of employment as Plantation Worker. The alleged accident has occurred on the

midnight only on account of the workman staying in the Estate quarters, which is an incidental to employment. Since, the alleged accident is on the

midnight of 29.12.1998, while the deceased worker was staying in the residential quarters, the learned Deputy Commissioner for Labour has

rightly held that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Contending that the expression ""arising out of and in the course of his employment"" cannot be extended to its illogical ends, the learned

Counsel for the Appellant-Management has placed reliance upon Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another, and 2007 LLR 185

(Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr.). In the first case, the workman was employed in Nellore Thermal Station

and his job was to ""switch on or off"". Observing that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties and therefore, the death of workman

due to heart attack at the work spot cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, the

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court, which has negatived the claim for compensation. In the second case

while travelling in Vehicle, which belonged to the Management, in which he was working as a Cleaner the Worker suddenly developed chest pain

and was admitted in hospital, where he was declared dead. Observing that the accident had taken place during the course of employment has to

be established and that the failure of heart was because of stress and strain of work has to be established, the Supreme Court declined to interfere

with the judgment of High Court. The factual situation in the present case stands entirely on different footing. The deceased workman happened to

confront the Elephant, while he was staying in the residential quarters in the Estate, which he has occupied in his capacity as Plantation Worker.

The accident is direct result of the employment and certainly arising in the course of his employment.

The question is, whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in holding that the accident occurred and the workman died during notional

extension of employment. The deceased Arjunan was sleeping in the house allotted to him by the Management. The Arjunan happened to be in the

residential quarters in his capacity as Plantation Labour. Hence, there is a casual connection between the employment and the death that could

certainly be construed to be an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the Respondent/Claimant being Legal Heir is

entitled to claim compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Management nextly contended that the Petition has been filed u/s 16A and 16C of Plantations Labour

Act, whereas, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has retracted from the contents in the Petition and has erroneously awarded the Compensation

under Workmen''s Compensation Act. It is of course true that the Application has been filed u/s 16A and 16C of Plantations Labour Act. But, the

wrong quoting of Provision is not a ground for rejecting the claim for compensation. Certain latitude has to be given to such pleadings/Applications

filed on behalf of the Workers either due to wrong advise or under wrong expression. The Application might had been filed u/s 16A and 16C of

Plantations Labour Act. The learned Deputy Commissioner was right in awarding the compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

The impugned order does not suffer from any serious error of law or infirmity warranting interference. This Appeal is devoid of merits and is bound

to fail.

In the result, the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation), Coimbatore, dated

21.08.2000 in W.C. No. 135 of 1999 is confirmed and the C.M.A. is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as

to costs. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour shall disburse the amount along with the accrued interest on necessary Application being made by

the Respondent/Claimant.