AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.1997, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Khammam (for short ''respondent No. 1'') in W.C. No. 31 of 1995, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., preferred this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').
Respondent No. 2 was employed as a coal cutter by the appellant on 13.3.1961. He was rendered medically unfit with effect from 13.2.1988. He was extended the necessary benefits as provided for under the relevant statutes and scheme and it is stated that his wife was provided with compassionate appointment. Respondent No. 2 submitted a claim before the respondent No. 1 claiming compensation on the ground that he suffered the disease ''bilateral chronic simple glaucoma'' on account of hazardous employment.
The appellant resisted the claim and stated the disease suffered by respondent No. 2 was not on account of his employment and that the claim itself is fictitious and belated. It was also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 accepted all the benefits extended by the appellant and it was not open to him to make any claim for further amount.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is payable under the Act only for the injuries that are referred to in the various Schedules, that too, by applying a formula. He submits that admittedly the ailment suffered by respondent No. 2, does not find place in Schedule III to the Act and as such no compensation was payable. He submits that the respondent No. 1 awarded compensation contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Though respondent No. 2 is served with notice, he has not chosen to appear in person or through Counsel.
It is a matter of record that respondent No. 2 was employed by the appellant as a coal utter in the year 1961 and was declared medically unfit, with effect from 16.2.1988. Under the relevant agreement and schemes, several benefits are required to be extended to the persons declared medically unfit and the same were extended to the respondent No. 2 including compassionate appointment to his wife.
Seven years after having been declared medically unfit, respondent No. 2 approached the respondent No. 1 with the claim. He pleaded that the disease suffered by him is directly traceable to his employment, which involved drilling the coal and detonating it underground. The Act provides for payment of compensation under various circumstances. u/s 4 of the Act, an employer is required to pay compensation in the event of death or bodily injury to the workers during the course of employment. For this purpose, the list of injuries resulting in permanent total disablement and those resulting in permanent partial disablement together with corresponding percentage of loss of earnings is contained in Parts I and II respectively of Schedule I to the Act. The Act also contemplates payment of compensation in cases other than death or bodily injury. There are certain categories of diseases contracted by the employees on account of their exposure to certain categories of employment. Schedule III of the Act contains the list of such diseases. These cases are dealt with u/s 3 of the Act.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the defective vision suffered by respondent No. 2 is not specified as a disease in Schedule III. A perceptible difference exists between Sections 3 and 4 of the Act in the matter of awarding compensation. There are certain residuary provisions u/s 4 of the Act, such as Section 4(1)(c)(ii), which take in their fold, injuries not specified in Schedule I. However, such a provision does not exist in Section 3 of the Act, the Commissioner has invariably to find, as to whether the disease said to have been suffered by the workman, is the one, specified in Schedule III, If the disease or ailment does not find place in Schedule III, there is no way under which compensation can-be awarded. If it is a case involving motor vehicle, the Tribunal or claimant can fall back on Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. Such a facility is not available in cases falling u/s 3 of the Act.
Respondent No. 1 has recorded a specific finding that the disease contracted by respondent No. 2 does not find place in Schedule III. Still, he made an effort to link the same to the nature of duties entrusted to respondent No. 2. Howsoever acceptable and logical such an approach may be, it should not be forgotten that it is the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature, whether or not to include a particular kind of disease in the relevant Schedule, in the context of payment of compensation. Courts cannot substitute their wisdom for that of the Legislature. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis for the order passed by respondent No. 1.
Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.