Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation vs Jayama Debi

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—By means of present Appeal from Order (A.O.), the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and award dated 25.06.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Kumaun Division, Haldwani in W.C.A. No. 34 of 2006, Smt. Jayama Debi v. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation.

After the death of deceased-Dhan Singh, the respondent (wife of the deceased employee) filed a W.C.A. No. 34/2006 before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation against the appellant. The said suit was allowed. The defendant (appellant herein) was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,62,868/- in favour of the dependant of the deceased (respondent herein) within one month from the date of judgment and award, failing which the appellant would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved against the same, present A.O. has been filed before this Court by the appellant/employer.

Notice was issued to the respondent, which was served personally, but none appeared for the respondent. The Court has, therefore, no other option but to decide the present appeal in the absence of respondent.

The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident did not take place at the working place, admittedly took place outside the work place and, therefore, the case of the claimant is not covered under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In other words, the death of the deceased-Dhan Singh did not take place ''during the course of employment''. The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation did not frame issues regarding the accident and the death of the deceased, as per Section 3 of the Act. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant is on higher side, inasmuch as, the deceased was simply a daily wager as has been mentioned in paras 1, 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendant-appellant. Specific averment was made in the written statement that the deceased-employee was a Chaukidar (watchman) on daily wage basis and, he died on 08.09.2001, but not ''during the course of employment''. He died outside the work-place. When the deceased was going on a road, he was hit by some unknown vehicle at Lalkuan over bridge and, therefore, the matter could have been dealt with under the Motor Vehicles Act and not under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

But the documents revealed otherwise (contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant). The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is - whether the deceased died ''during the course of employment'' or not? The FIR was lodged on 08.09.2001 at 3:10PM. The incident took place on the selfsame day at 2:30 PM. Sri N.K. Varshney, who was the Depot Officer of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, at the relevant point of time, lodged the FIR. The relevant portion of the FIR reads as under:

"....................... I have been informed by Bahadur Singh, Chaukidar that when Dhan Singh, Chaukidar of Lalkuan Depot No. 5 of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation was going for the work of the Corporation, an unknown vehicle, whose driver was plying it rashly and negligently, hit him above the Railway over bridge. As a result of which, Dhan Singh died on the spot. ......................................................."

When an officer of the appellant-department himself has mentioned in the FIR that the deceased died during the course of official duty, how can the department now plead otherwise? No different stand could be taken by the appellant-department, which is contrary to what was alleged by the officer of the appellant in the FIR.

''In the course of employment'' means ''in the course of work which the workman is employed to do and, which is incidental to it''. ''Arising out of employment'' means that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service. It has been held in Shipping Corporation of India v. Himatlal Sewai Solanki, 2006 (109) FLR 541 (Bombay High Court) that ''arising out of employment'' is again not confined to the mere nature of employment, the expression applies to employment and as such to its nature, its condition, its obligations and its incidents. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) ACJ 1 : AIR 2007 SC 248 : (2007) 112 FLR 203 : (2007) 1 JT 15 : (2006) 11 SCALE 609 : (2007) 11 SCC 668 : (2006) 8 SCR 939 Supp , Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that what is necessary for attracting the changing provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act is that (i) an injury must be caused to a workman, (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident, and (iii) it arose out of on the course of his employment.

Perusal of the FIR lodged by the officer of the appellant-department reveals that the deceased died ''during the course of employment''. It is a settled principal of law that a casual workman employed for the purpose of business is also covered under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, as has been held by Hon''ble Kerala High Court in Shah v. Rajan Kutty, 2005 (107) FLR 702. Since the deceased in the instant case was working on daily wage basis, therefore, he is also covered under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

Learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has not only dealt with the dispute in a proper prospective holding that the victim died during the course of employment, but has also rightly calculated the amount of compensation, which the respondent is entitled to.

This Court has no reason to take a different view that what was taken by learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. The findings given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation are affirmed. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award.

The A.O., therefore, fails and is dismissed.