AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.—The order passed in W.C. No. 163 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul is being challenged in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
The respondent herein as applicant has filed the petition in question praying to award a compensation of Rs. 45,100/- wherein, the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent.
It is averred in the petition that on 14.04.1999, the applicant has served as a driver under the employment of the respondent and on the same day at 9.55 p.m, after finishing his duty, he has stopped the bus in Dindigul Branch and he has to begin his duty on 15.04.1999 at about 4.55 a.m. Since he has to resume his duty on 15.04.1999 at abut 4.55 a.m, he stayed in the rest room. On 15.04.1999 at about 4.30 a.m, the applicant has woken up and gone to toilet and unfortunately he has fallen down and thereby sustained injuries including fracture. Since the applicant has fallen down during the course of employment of the respondent, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Further, it is stated in the petition that the applicant has spent Rs. 41,100/- towards medical expenses. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.
In the counter filed on the side of respondent, it is stated that the staff of the respondent are not bound to stay in the rest room during night hours and the rest room is meant only for taking rest and further the applicant has not sustained injuries during the course of his employment or in connection with employment. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal.
After considering the contentions raised on either side, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul has awarded a compensation of Rs. 41,000/-. Against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed at the instance of the respondent as appellant.
Even though the respondent/applicant has been served with notice, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent.
The crux of the case of the applicant is that during the relevant period, he has served as a driver under the employment of the respondent. On 14.04.1999, he finished his duty at 9.55 p.m and he has stopped the bus in Dindigul Branch and since he has to resume his duty on 15.04.1999 at about 4.55 a.m, he stayed in the rest room during night hours and on 15.04.1999, he has woken up at about 4.30 a.m and gone to toilet for cleaning his face etc., and unfortunately he has fallen down and thereby sustained injuries including fracture and he has spent Rs. 41,100/- towards medical expenses.
The specific contention urged on the side of the appellant/respondent is that the applicant has not fallen down during the course of his employment or in connection with his employment and further he has no locus standi to stay in the rest room after finishing his work. Under the said circumstances, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant.
The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, has rejected the contention urged on the side of the appellant/respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 41,000/-.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has sparingly contended that on 14.04.1999 at about 9.55 p.m, the duty of the applicant has come to an end and he has stopped the bus in Dindigul Branch. But, he unauthorizedly stayed in the rest room during night hours and he has to resume duty only on 15.04.1999 at about 4.55 a.m. But he has fallen down on the same day at about 4.30 a.m and since he has not sustained injuries including fracture during the course of his employment or in connection with his employment, the appellant/respondent is not legally liable to pay compensation to the respondent/applicant. But the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul has erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs. 41,000/- and therefore the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul is liable to be set aside.
In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions:
i) The first and foremost decision is reported in 2002 (91) FLR 1170 (Smt. Lakshmi v. Proprietor, Hotel Ajantha), wherein the High Court of Karnataka has specifically held that an employee must sustain injury only during the course of his employment for claiming compensation.
ii) The second decision is reported in 1996 (2) L.L.N. 895 (Regional Director, Employee''s State Insurance Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr.), wherein, the Apex Court has held in categorical terms that the injury must be of such an extent as can be attributed to an accident or an occupational disease arising out of his employment. "Out of", in this context, must mean caused by employment. Of course, the phrase "Out of" has an exclusive meaning also. If a man is described to be out of his employment, it means he is without a job. The other meaning of the phrase "out of" is "influenced, inspired or caused by out of pity; out of respect for him".
iii) The third decision is reported in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Lodhi and Another, , wherein also the High Court of Madya Pradesh has held that for claiming compensation, the accident in question must occur in the course of employment or in connection with employment.
From the conjoint reading of the decisions referred to above, one can easily discern that for claiming compensation under Workmen''s Compensation Act, the accident in question or the injury in question must occur during the course of employment or in connection with employment.
In the instant case, in the application, it has been clearly stated that the applicant has finished his duty on 14.04.1999 by 9.55 p.m and he has to resume his duty next day i.e. on 15.04.1999 at about 4.55 a.m and he has fallen down on 15.04.1999 at about 4.30 a.m. Therefore at the time of sustaining injuries including fracture by the applicant, he has not been under his duty or in connection with his duty. To put it in short, at the time of occurrence, the applicant is not under the employment of the respondent or in connection with employment. Further the applicant has not been authorised to take sleep in the rest room. Since the applicant has not sustained injuries during the course of his employment or in connection with his employment, it is needless to say that the appellant/respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant. But the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, without considering the vital factual aspect which involved in the present case and also without considering the correct legal point has erroneously directed the appellant/respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 41,000/- to the applicant. In view of the foregoing elucidation of both factual and legal premise, this Court has found enormous force in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent and altogether the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul is liable to be set aside.
In fine, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed without costs and the order passed in W.C. No. 163 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul is set aside and the application filed in W.C. No. 163 of 2001 is dismissed without costs.