Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
The Conservator of Forests & Another
Versus
Smt. Kusumtai wd/o. Ganpatrao & Others
First Appeal No.279 of 2001
Decided On : 13-06-2013
A forest guard comes within ambit and scope of definition of workman under Section 2(1)(n) of Act. - Supreme Court in the case Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and another, (2006) 5 SCC 513 : 2006 (5) All MR 16 (SC). Held the duty of the workman in that case was only of switching switches on and off only and nothing more. There was an opinion of Doctor that there was no scope for stress or strain in the duties of said workman, who died of suffering a heart attack, because he was said to have been already suffering from heart disease and was receiving treatment therefor. In that context, the Supreme Court held that his death could not have been caused arising out of and in the course of employment. Those facts are clearly distinguishable and cannot have any application to the facts of the instant case.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (See Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) - Section 3 - Accident during employment.
Where a forest guard/workman was murdered and his dead body was found in deep forest clothed with uniform therefore incident of murder arose out of and in course of employment. - Keeping in mind the above principles, it would be appropriate to examine whether in the instant case the above principles could be applied. It is not in dispute that deceased Ganpat was in the employment of the appellant/Forest Department for about 20 years as a Forest Guard. Undoubtedly, he is a workman. On the fateful day, he went in his uniform for patrolling in Edsamba forest on his motor cycle and his dead body was traced after two days and the post-mortem report shows findings of homicidal death. The fact that, on the dead body, a belt was found with emboss of forest department clearly corroborated the fact that the deceased was performing his duty in the deep forest. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that there was no difficulty in holding that death was homicidal in the light of serious injuries, with which I also agree. But the question is whether the same was arising out of and in the course of employment. Even if it is established that Ganpat was murdered in the forest, the burden to show that deceased Ganpat invited peril and he himself was responsible for the incident of murder was on the forest department. But, the appellant did not either plead or prove the said case. It will have to be, therefore, clearly found that Ganpat had gone to forest for duty as usual and he was murdered by some unidentified persons. Had he not gone to attend his duty in the forest, the incident would not have occurred. That leads me to hold that it is the incident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (See Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) - Section 4 - Claim of compensation.
Since remedy provided by Act is an independent remedy besides benefits which dependents of deceased are entitled to get from Government hence compensation cannot be denied to dependents of a Government servant on ground of availability of usual benefits. - The second question framed by me will have to be answered in the negative since the remedy provided by the Act of 1923 is an independent remedy besides the benefits the dependents of the deceased are entitled to get from the Government and the Legislature must be said to be well aware about the same and that is why, there is no exemption granted to the State Government from the provisions of the Act of 1923 for granting compensation merely because it provides for dependent benefits.
1. This is a First Appeal filed by the Conservator of Forest, Nagpur challenging the Judgment and Award dt.24.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.A. (F) Application no.24 of 1999, by which the appellants were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,63,070/- with interest @ 12 % p.a.
FACTS :
2. Deceased Ganpatrao Dhote, the husband of original applicant no.1/respondent no.1 herein and the father of other respondents was in the employment of appellant/Forest department for about a period of twenty years before his death as a Forest Guard attached to Bhalewada bit under South Umrer Forest range. At the relevant time, the deceased was posted at Compartment No.421 having territorial area of 24 kms. His duty was to preserve the forest from theft and to see that no part of the forest catches fire and to extinguish the fire. On the fateful day, on 29.1.1999, with his usual uniform, the deceased went on duty towards the forest with his motor cycle and was patrolling in Edsamba Jungle. It appears that he was murdered by some unidentified persons and his dead body was kept near the nala under the earth. Having searched for about two days since the deceased did not return home, his dead body was found near nala in rotten condition. Thereafter, Officer visited the spot and after lodging the First Information Report, the police and the C.I.D. made investigation, but could not arrest the murderers. The dead body of Ganpat was sent for postmortem examination having serious injuries, which was identified. During the panchanama, it was found that a belt having emboss of Forest department was lying on the spot. Age of the deceased was 42 years. The dependents of the deceased, therefore, claimed compensation.
3. The defence taken by the appellant/Forest department in the Written Statement was that the deceased was not a workman nor the incident of murder could be said to be an accident, which is a precondition for claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1923”). The Commissioner framed issues and answered the issues in favour of the respondents/claimants and held that compensation was payable to the family members of the deceased with interest @ 12 % p.a.
4. Mr. M.P. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, by no stretch of imagination, the murder can be brought within the sweep of provisions of the Act of 1923 for the purposes of granting compensation and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anotherreported in 2000 (85) FLR 801. He then argued that 12 % interest granted by the Commissioner was not at all justified and there is no basis for awarding the said rate of interest. He further argued that deceased Ganpat being employee of the Forest department, his dependents were not entitled to any compensation under the Act of 1923 because his dependents were entitled to all the benefits due to the deceased/employee and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1923 as to compensation stand excluded.
5. Per Contra, Mr. S.S. Ghate, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 supported the impugned judgment and Award and argued that the judgment and Award fully considers all the aspects of the matter. The provisions of the Act of 1923 are independent of benefits due to the deceased being a Government Servant and the compensation is payable even if usual benefits from the Government to the dependents of the deceased are payable.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties, the following substantial questions of law arise in the present First Appeal. a) Whether, in the facts of the present case, murder of an employee in the course of his employment would fall within the meaning of provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act for awarding compensation under the said Act ? …......... Yes. b) Whether the compensat
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
