Pritam Dass vs Krishan Chand

R.P. Sethi, J.—Appellant workman filed a claim petition against the respondent alleging therein that his hand came in the machine crushing his four fingers on 10.1.1984 while in the employment of the respondent. In the objections filed the employer stated that the appellant's services stood terminated on 7.12.1983 and he was not a workman discharging duties under him on 10.1.1984 when he met with the accident.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act:

(1) Whether the applicant met with an accident during the course of his employment under the respondent? OPP.

(2) Whether the applicant was in receipt of the salary from the respondent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month? OPP.

The appellant produced Hans Raj, Munshi Ram, Krishen Kumar, Kaku, Chanu Ram and Bheema as his witnesses besides appearing himself as his own witness. He produced the copy or the F.I.R.

Respondent non-applicant produced Paras Ram Sarpanch, Chatru Ram, Bachitru Ram, Jagdev Singh and Sunder Kha besides himself appearing as his own witness.

The claim petition was rejected vide the order impugned in this appeal on the ground of alleged contradictions and without deciding the issues as framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The order impugned is alleged to be against law and facts also involving substantial questions of law.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. Goni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent employer, has submitted that as no substantial question of law is involved this appeal is liable to be dismissed u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Parihar has submitted as he has thrown a challenge to the legality of the procedure followed by the Commissioner, the appeal involves a substantial question of law as held in Bhagwati v. G.I.P. Railway AIR 1939 Nag 106 that where the claim was disallowed in full, the claimant workman was entitled to file appeal u/s 30(1)(a) of the Act as the same involved a substantial question of law. Relying upon an earlier judgment reported in AIR 1933 272 (Nagpur) it was held in Bhagwati v. G.I.P. Railway AIR 1939 Nag 106:

It is urged for the respondent that the Commissioner's order is not appealable. Reference is made to AIR 1933 272 (Nagpur) . All that is laid down there is that u/s 30 of the Act no appeal lies unless a substantial question of law involves. Since the claim has been disallowed in full, the claimant is entitled to appeal u/s 30(1)(a) and it cannot be disputed that the appeal involves a substantial question of law.

The Division Bench of Patna High Court in Urmila Dasi and Another Vs. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., allowed the claim in appeal of the workman which had been rejected by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act. Macpherson, J. while agreeing with Kulwant Sahay, J. held, ""it is a substantial question of law whether on the facts found by the Commissioner in this case the employer has brought himself within the exception set out in Section 3(1)(b)(ii) on which he relies. Accordingly an appeal lies."" The finding of fact which is based on irrelevant considerations is not binding in appeal. Violation of the procedure in arriving at a finding would vitiate the order. The phrase 'substantial question of law' has to be given a wider construction than what is attributed to it under the CPC in a case where the whole of the claim of the workman is rejected, completely ignoring the procedure and the irregularities are apparent on the face of the record.

The Commissioner has framed issues regarding which evidence was led by the parties but completely ignoring the issues, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of the appellant-claimant purely on conjectures. This appeal, therefore, involves a substantial question of law and is maintainable.

The appellant had produced evidence to prove issue No. 1 and all the witnesses produced by him had unequivocally stated that he was working at the machine of the respondent at the time of the accident. The witnesses had not only stated that the appellant was in the employment of the respondent but had further stated that he was injured while in his employment. The copy of the report No. 27 of Police Station Udhampur also clearly mentions that the appellant who has been mentioned as Pritam Chand had met with an accident while in the employment of the respondent.

Kaku PW has stated that he was informed by the wife of the respondent that the appellant had been injured while in the employment of her husband. Ram Dass PW has stated that at the time the appellant's hand came in the machine crushing his fingers he was sitting in the adjoining shop and immediately rushed to the spot. Similarly, Chanu Ram and Rattan PWs have corroborated the statement of Ram Dass PW. Sadu Kha witness produced by the respondent has stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated in December 1983 and a document was executed upon which the signatures of the claimant were obtained. In cross-examination he has expressed ignorance about the contents of the document which was never shown to him. Bachitru Ram witness of the respondent has vaguely stated that the services of the appellant were terminated in December 1983 but he could not stand the test of cross-examination. The statement of Jagdev Singh is also evasive not inspiring any confidence of the court. Krishen Chand respondent has admitted that the appellant was working on his machine and drawing a salary of Rs. 80/-per month but has denied the injury sustained by the petitioner allegedly during the course of employment. He has produced a register according to which the appellant's presence is not shown after December 1983. Dr. S.S. Padha, Orthopaedic Surgeon in his statement has submitted that he examined the appellant and found that four fingers of the left hand of the appellant/petitioner had been amputated. His permanent disability in terms of earning capacity has been assessed at 55 per cent.

From the evidence produced as detailed hereinabove it is abundantly proved that the appellant was in the employment of the respondent when he met with an accident in which his four fingers were amputated and he suffered the permanent disablement to the extent of 50 per cent in terms of Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The evidence produced by the respondent being evasive and contradictory, does not inspire any confidence of the court. The contradictions pointed out by the Commissioner were of hyper-technical nature and could not have been made a basis for rejecting the claim of the appellant.

So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, I am of the opinion that the appellant had produced evidence to show that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 100/- per month at the time when he met with the accident. The respondent, however, had admitted that in December, 1983 the appellant was drawing Rs. 80/-per month only. Issue No. 2, therefore, is decided in favour of the appellant holding that he was in receipt of salary from the respondent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month when he met with an accident.

In view of the fact that the petitioner/ appellant has been proved to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent he is held entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in terms of Section 4 read with Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellant is also held entitled to the payment of costs. If the amount awarded is not paid to the appellant within one month he will be entitled to the payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of this judgment till the whole amount is paid to him.