Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madhusudan Das & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6159 OF 2008
Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4725 of 2007
Decided on : October 20, 2008
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(3) - Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 - Permanent total disablement due to accident - Course of employment - Appointment on compassionate - Representation was made by respondent for his appointment on compassionate ground same was rejected - He filed a writ petition marked as Writ Petition praying for following relief - It is therefore humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon Respondents to show cause as to why petitioner be not appointed on compassionate ground and on return of rule and after hearing parties further be pleased to make rule absolute against Respondents - A learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court dismissed said writ petition on ground that it involved disputed questions of fact - Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by him which has been allowed by reason of impugned judgment – Held, It has to be established that there was some causal connection between death of the workman and his employment - If workman dies as a natural result of disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of employment no liability would be fixed upon employer - But if employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated death or if death was due not only to disease but also disease coupled with employment then it can be said that death arose out of employment and employer would be liable - Expression accident means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed - Injury means physiological injury - In was observed that expression accident is used in popular and ordinary sense of word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed - Appeal is Allowed.
Key Points: - The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed, and injury means physiological injury (!) . - Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule of appointment on merit and must be confined to the death of the sole bread earner due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The burden of proof lies on the workman to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, which may be inferred from proved facts if a legitimate inference arises (!) (!) . - The rights of the parties were determined as on the date of the incident, and a subsequent presumption under the Evidence Act cannot give rise to a claim except in very exceptional cases (!) . - The impugned judgment was set aside because it failed to establish a causal connection between death and employment; the appeal was allowed without an order as to costs (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of terms of a tripartite settlement providing for appointment on compassionate ground is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20.09.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 373 of 2006 allowing an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 from the judgment and order dated 4.07.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. (S) No. 507 of 2002.
3. Bhagirathi Das (deceased) was an employee of Gua Ores Mines, Gua, District - Singhbhum West belonging to appellant. On 10.02.1996, he was on C-3 Shift duty. He was asked to continue in the morning duty on 11.02.1996. While working, he suddenly collapsed and declared dead at the spot. He left behind his two wives, two married daughters, one unmarried daughter and three sons. Respondent No. 1 herein is son through his second wife, Mulgi Devi and one Goverdan Dass is the son through his first wife Savitri Devi.
4. A representation was made by respondent No. 1 for his appointment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected. He filed a writ petition marked as Writ Petition (S) No. 507 of 2002 praying inter alia for the following relief: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner be not appointed on compassionate ground and on return of the rule and after hearing the parties further be pleased to make the rule absolute against the Respondents."
5. A learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by him which has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.
6. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that appointment on compassionate ground was to be made strictly only in terms of Para 8.9.4 of the settlement providing that the death of the bread earner should have occurred `due to an accident arising out of and in course of employment', as in this case, the employee had not died due to an accident.
7. Indisputably, the provision for appointment on compassionate ground is provided in Para 8.9.4 of the Memorandum of Settlement of Wages and Benefits, 1989, which is in the following terms:
"8.9.4 In case of death due to accident arising out of and in course of employment, employment to one of his/ her direct dependants will be provided."
8. The post mortem report of the deceased did not suggest that he died out of the ordinary sense of the term `accident'. The viscera report reads as under: "No metallic, alkaloidal, glycosidal, pesticidal or volative poison could be detected in the dark- brown fluid described above."
9. Indisputably, the settlement was arrived at by and between the Management and the Workmen on 8.08.1995 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, para 9.2(f) whereof reads as under:
"9.2 The employees covered by this settlement shall continue to be entitled to the benefits admissible under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the previous settlement as below: (f) In case of death or permanent total disablement due to accident arising out of and in course of employment, employment to one of his/ her direct dependants will be provided."
10. The core question, which arises for our consideration, is as to whether Bhagirathi Das died in an accident arising out of and in course of employment.
11. For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the following extracts from the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondent No. 1 respectively: Writ petition
"5. That admittedly Bhagirathi Das father of the petitioner was s
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
