Dhananjay Singh Rada Pratap Singh vs M/s. Steel Rolling Mill of Maharashtra

1 This Appeal challenges an Order dated 23^rd October, 2008 passed by the Fourth Labour Court at Thane. The operative part of the Order reads as under:-

2 The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

3 On 19^th May, 2007, the Appellant was on duty on a shift from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.. He was working on a machine in the factory of the Respondent. Suddenly one iron particle came out of the machine and entered into the right eye of the Appellant. The Appellant was immediately attended by Dr. Khatri, i.e., the company’s doctor, but the injury was serious, so he was referred to Dr. Satyan Jaju in Bhiwandi. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Nair Hospital when it was found that there was no vision in his right eye. Thereafter, the Appellant was admitted in Lotus Hospital, Mumbai but there was no improvement in the eye sight of the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant claims that he met with an accident while he was on duty with the Respondent-Company. He lost his right eye during the course of his employment. He could not do the job which he was doing earlier though he made attempt to join duty. So he was entitled to compensation.

4 According to the Appellant, he was unable to do the work that he was doing prior to the accident and, therefore, his occupational disability should be 100%. The Appellant also made claimed on the basis that his occupational disability is 100%. The Appellant also claims penalty and interest.

5 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has firstly submitted that the Labour Court wrongly held that the occupational disability was to the extent of 50% and should have held that the disability is to the extent of 100%.

6 The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant referred to the evidence of the Appellant and submitted that the Appellant had stated that, though he lost his right eye sight, his occupational disability was 100%. The learned Counsel submitted that this evidence of the Appellant has not been challenged in the cross examination and, therefore, the Labour Court should have held the occupational disability as 100%.

7 Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to Item 4 of Part 1 of Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ( the “Act”) and submitted that the injury of the Appellant fell under the said item and, therefore, the disability was to the extent of 100%. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayanandan v/s. Varkey and Others 2024 Supreme (SC) 1321 and submitted that, in the said judgement also, it had been held that loss of one eye sight may result in disability of 100%.

8 The learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v/s. Srinivas Sabata and Another MANU/SCC/0021/1975 in support of her submission that the disability should be 100%.

9 The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that as per Section 4A (3) (a) of the Act, the employer is required to pay simple interest @ 12% p.a. or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank, as may be specified by the Central Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette on the amount due. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since, in this case, there was a delay in making the claim of compensation, the Labour Court should have allowed compensation @ 12% p.a. instead of allowing interest only at 6% p.a.

10 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that this Appeal should not be entertained as it does not involve any substantial question of law.

11 Further, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Item 4 of Part 1 of Schedule I of the Act and submitted that the same would be applicable only when there is loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eye sight is essential and that the evidence on record in the present case was that the same was not true in the case of the Appellant.

12 The learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Item 26 of Part II of Schedule I and submitted that the case of the Appellant fell within Item 26 which provides for loss of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other eye being normal, and, therefore, submitted that the disability of the Appellant should have been considered as 30% and not even 50% as held by the Labour Court.

13 The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the evidence of the Appellant, and especially paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof, and submitted that the Appellant has lost one eye and, therefore, there is no total disability.

14 The learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that it was important to note that no doctor had been examined by the Appellant to show 100% disability. The learned Counsel submitted that if the Appellant wanted to show 100% disability, then he should have examined an expert in the form of an eye doctor.

15 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the judgement of the Patna High Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., v/s. Harendra Singh and Others 2000 (2) L.L.N. 1133, the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Managing Director, Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. v/s. K. L. Sharma & Another 2009 I CLR 221 and the judgement of the Gauhati High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v/s. Sanjit Kumar and another 2001 (2) L. L. N. 1085.

16 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

17 Firstly, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The issues raised in the Appeal in respect of the permanent disability of 100% and the entitlement to interest are questions of law and, therefore, the Appeal cannot be dismissed on that ground.

18 As far as submission that the disability is 100% is concerned, Section 2 (1) (l) of the Act defines total disablement as meaning such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.

19 In the present case, firstly, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Appellant has not examined any doctor to prove that the Appellant was not capable, after the accident, of performing the work which he was doing at the time of disablement. In the light of the failure of the Appellant to examine any doctor, it would be difficult to accept his case of 100% disability.

20 Further, the evidence of the Appellant shows that, after the accident, he had joined his duty and tried to do the work which he was doing earlier. It was the evidence of the Appellant that since there was no vision in his right eye, there was strain in his left eye and that there was danger of further accident. Therefore, he said that he could not do that job and also felt that there was further danger of accident while working on the machine. This evidence of the Appellant shows that the Appellant was capable of doing the work which he was doing prior to the accident and, therefore, his disability should not be considered as 100%. It would be important to reiterate that, if the Appellant wanted to prove the said case of 100% disability, then the Appellant should have examined a doctor, which the Appellant failed to do.

21 Further, as far as Schedule I to the Act is concerned, in my view, the case of the Appellant does not fall within Item 4 of Part 1 of Schedule I as the same refers to loss of sight to such an extent as to render the Claimant unable to do any work for which eye sight is essential. Since, the Appellant has lost only one eye and his other eye is proper, his case would not fall within Item 4. On the contrary, the Appellant’s case would fall under Item 25 and Item 26 of Part II of Schedule 1 which read as under:-

22 On account of the same, the disability of the Appellant would be 40% or 30%. However, the relief granted to the Appellant is on the basis that his disability is 50% and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said findings of the Labour Court.

23 As far as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayanandan (supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In the said case, the Appellant had lost his one eye as a diamond cutter, and considering the nature of his job, his disability was held to be 100%.

24 Paragraph 7 of the said judgement reads as under:-

25 As far as judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) is concerned, in the light of my earlier findings that the Appellant has not proved that, after the accident, he was not capable of doing the work which he was performing earlier, this judgement would not take the case of the Appellant any further.

26 As a result of aforesaid findings, it is not necessary for me to deal with the judgements referred to by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

27 As far as the question of interest is concerned, Section 4A (3) (a) reads as under:-

28 It is very clear from the said Section, that simple interest at 12% p.a. or at a higher rate has to be granted. In the present case, the Respondent has not made the entire payment which the Appellant was entitled to (for 50% disability) and, therefore, interest has been levied on the amount of Rs.1,04.117/-, i.e. the balance payment, of 6% p.a. from the date of adjudication of the amount. In my view, in the light of the provisions of Sections 4A (3)(a), the opponent will have to be directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.1,04,117/-.

29 Accordingly, the following Order is passed:-