Back
2008(3) Supreme 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Om Parkash Batish — Petitioner
versus
Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur and others — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2943 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5471 of 2006)
Decided on : 24-04-2008
(b) Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 30 – It was a case of pure and simple accident and that too at a place over which the appellant had no control – Entering into the realm of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties per se is out of bound of an appellate court which is concerned with determination of a substantial question of law. (Para 19)
(c) Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 2(n) – The workman having been employed for a limited period for carrying out repair works in a residential house is not a workman within the provisions of the Act – Even otherwise, working in a residential house does not satisfy the requirements of law. (Paras 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
1. Appellant is the owner of a residential building. It is situated by the side of an industrial establishment known as M/s. Chandrika Textiles.
2. On or about 30th June, 1996, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Ram Lal, suffered an accident coming in co ntact with a high tension electrical wire passing over the roof of the said M/s. Chandrika Textiles. He suffered injuries as a result thereof. He expired on 6th July, 1996.
3. On the premise that the said Ram Lal was a ‘workman’ under the appellant, a proceeding was initiated by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the Act.
4. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner held the application to be not maintainable.
5. Respondents herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court in terms of Section 30 of the said Act. The High Court made an award in favour of the respondents.
Findings of the Court :
The workman was not a workman within the provisions of the Act.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points:- The appellant argues that a casual employee hired for repairing a residential building is not a "workman" under Section 2(n) of the Act; the court analyzes the definition and Schedule II applicability. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court notes that entering evidence interpretation is limited in an appeal; a substantial question of law is the focus for Section 30 appeals. (!) (!) - The Act’s definition of "workman" excludes casual employment and requires connection to the employer’s trade or business; in this case, the work was for a limited period to repair a residential house, not satisfying the statutory criteria. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The incident involved an accident connected to high-tension wires, with evidence presented regarding whether Ram Lal was a workman; the court discusses the credibility and admissibility of dying declarations and police statements within the Workmen’s Compensation framework. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment ultimately sets aside the impugned order, holding that the deceased was not a workman under the Act at the relevant time, and the appeal is allowed. (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether a casual employee who was appointed for a limited period to carry out repairing job in a building would be a’workman’ within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act) is the core question involved herein.
3. Appellant is the owner of a residential building. It is situated by the side of an industrial establishment known as M/s. Chandrika Textiles.
4. On or about 30th June, 1996, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Ram Lal, suffered an accident coming in contact with a high tension electrical wire passing over the roof of the said M/s. Chandrika Textiles. He suffered injuries as a result thereof. He was shifted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research, Chandigarh, where his statement was recorded. He expired on 6th July, 1996.
5. On the premise that the said Ram Lal was a ‘workman’ under the appellant, a proceeding was initiated by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the Act. In the said proceeding the parties adduced their respective evidences. One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that the accident took place when the said Ram Lal was on the roof of the said textile mills and that he had not been working under him. It was, however, accepted that he had been working for sometime with the appellant for carrying out repair works. It was furthermore urged that a casual employee would not be a ‘workman’ within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.
6. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed several issues; principal amongst them were :-
“1. Whether the deceased Ram Lal was employed as workman by the opposite party in the relevant date? OPA
4. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR
The first issue was answered in the negative. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner on issue No.4 held :-
“In the nutshell nothing can be derived from the statement of PW-3 Kamal Chand except that he knew the date of accident i.e. 30-6-1996 at the time which assumably seems to have been after thought only. Therefore both the witnesses of the applicants could not prove the alleged place of accident which resulted into the death of Ram Lal whereas there is sufficient evidence having been admitted by Achharpal PW about the site of the accident further having corroboration in the statement of Hamir Chand and Anil Kumar RWs who are independent witnesses.
Thus the entire evidence of respondents is logical which goes to show that Ram Lal got shock injuries on the roof of the shed of a closed factory owned by late Partap Singh at village Khera on 30-6-1996 as per site plan Ex.RW-3/A.
Secondly the contention of respondents that deceased Ram Lal was not covered under the definition of a workman is not required to be discussed here as the relationship of employee and worker is not there in this particular case.
In view of the above discussion I hereby hold that the application in not maintainable as Ram Lal deceased was not workman on the relevant date i.e. 30-6-1996 with the respondents and he got inflicted by an electric shock at another place than the alleged one.
Therefore issue No.4 is decided in favour of the respondents and against the applicants.”
7. Respondents herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court in terms of Section 30 of the said Act. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law.
“1. Whether the Commissioner has totally failed to appreciate the evidence properly and legally and as such has caused injustice to the appellants?
2. Whether the Commissioner has wrongly mixed the question of criminal proceedings as well as the proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act and has given wrong weightage to the police report?
3. Whether the learned Commissioner has wrongly and illegally decided issue No.4 regarding maintainability of the application?”
8. The High Court proceeded on the basis that although an appeal under Section 30 of the Ac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
