Hindustan Zinc Ltd And Anr vs Shankerlal And Anr

This misc. appeal U/s.30 of Workmen's Compensation Act has been filed by the appellants claiming the following reliefs :-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.6.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Udaipur in cases No. WC 103/2005 (ALC) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

Pending the appeal, if any order is passed or any action is taken, prejudicial to the interest of appellant, same may kindly be taken on record, and may be quashed and set-aside."

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent workman was working in the appellant company for 30 years as a Senior Driller Blaster. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after 30 years service, the respondent workman sought voluntary retirement and accordingly, he was voluntarily retired w.e.f. 30.4.2000. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after taking all benefits arising out of voluntary retirement, the belated claim has been filed by the respondent workman on 3.12.2005 claiming inter alia that during employment in the appellant company, the respondent workman has lost his hearing capacity. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is a settled law that a workman who is not in employment and whose employer-employee relationship has been severed on account of voluntary retirement, cannot claim benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Purshottam Lal vs. The Chief Managing Director, M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.785/2008), decided on 24.7.2009, which reads as follows :-

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The learned Labour Court has passed the award, Annex.6, purportedly exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act with respect to certain amount claimed by the appellant, claiming himself to be a Workman, and claiming himself entitled to the encashment of LTC. That award was challenged by the employer by way of writ petition, which writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A.K.Bindal and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 and held that the voluntary retirement scheme is "golden handshake of the employer and employee", and thus, it being a full and final settlement, learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) to adjudicate the right of the employee.

Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc. reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 tried to contend that it cannot be said that the amount in question was disputed, so as to require adjudication, and therefore, application under Section 33C(2) was maintainable.

In our view, from a look at the reply filed by the employer to the claim of the employee, it is clear that the parameters laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank's case are not attracted to confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to exercise powers under Section 33C(2). In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

The appeal thus, has no force and is dismissed. However, we may clarify that this dismissal of the the appeal would not in any manner come in the way of the employee in seeking such other remedy as may be available to him under law for claiming the relief claimed before the Labour Court purportedly under Section 33C(2). While deciding the claim if made by the appellant in appropriate forum, since we are informed that A.K.Bindal's case has been referred to Larger Bench, it will be open to the employee to project this aspect of the matter also, and it will be open to the concerned forum to decide that controversy afresh in accordance with law."

Learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that it is not disputed by the appellants that the respondent workman discharged the duty of Senior Driller Blaster for 30 years before he was voluntarily retired and the permanent hearing impairment was caused due to the nature of the job i.e. blasting and drilling causing sound which resulted in Severe Sensorineural Deafness and the same was directly attributable to the nature of work done by him in the appellant company.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned authority below has not committed any error in allowing the claim of the respondent workman on account of 100% hearing impairment caused by excessive noise which was medically proved by him. Further, the appellants have not been able to prove that the cause of impairment was other than the 30 years employment as Senior Driller Blaster. The learned authority below has rightly determined the compensation. This Court further finds that the factual matrix of the case does not indicate that the disability has been caused after severing of the employer-employee relationship due to voluntary retirement but rather has been caused due to long 30 years service discharged by the respondent workman with the appellants. Thus, no interference in is called for in the impugned judgment.

Consequently, the present appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.