Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, K. C. DAS GUPTA
KALI DAS GHOSAL - Appellant
Versus
S. K. MONDAL - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 68 Of 1956
Decided On : JUNE 05, 1957
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Limitation - Sufficient cause for delay in filing application - Whether appellant required to establish sufficient cause for not making application within one year from date of accident or whether required to establish sufficient cause for not making application till date on which he did make it - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), S. 10.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, Kali Das Ghosal, filed an application for compensation on June 21, 1954, for injuries allegedly suffered on August 18, 1950, while employed by the respondent. The respondent denied employing the appellant and claimed he was a domestic servant and gardener, not a workman under the Act. The Commissioner framed five issues, including limitation, whether the accident arose out of employment, the rate of monthly wages, permanent partial disability, and whether the appellant was a workman within the meaning of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner found against the appellant on the issue of limitation but held in his favor on the other issues. However, the Commissioner's findings were criticized for not paying proper attention to the evidence and for not approaching the issues with a full sense of their implication.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's claim was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the accident had arisen out of and in the course of his employment. 3. What the rate of his monthly wages was. 4. Whether he had sustained any permanent partial disability and if so, to what extent. 5. Whether he was a workman within the meaning of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner erred in his approach to the issue of limitation by requiring the appellant to establish sufficient cause for not making his application within the subsequent period that elapsed before the application was actually made, rather than focusing solely on whether there was sufficient cause for not making the application within one year from the date of the accident. 2. The Commissioner failed to properly examine the evidence and consider discrepancies and contradictions in the appellant's statements regarding his employment, wages, and duration of illness. 3. The Commissioner erred in relying on medical evidence to determine the extent of the appellant's loss of earning capacity, as this is a question of fact to be determined by considering the diminution or destruction of physical capacity and its impact on the appellant's ability to perform his duties and earn remuneration.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Commissioner's judgment and order were set aside, and the case was remanded for rehearing in accordance with the observations made by the court. The parties were permitted to adduce additional evidence solely on the question of loss of earning capacity.
( 1 ) THIS case must go back as in my opinion, there has been no proper determination of the issues involved in the case upon a proper consideration of the evidence.
( 2 ) THE appellant Kali Das Ghosal made an application for compensation on the 21st of June, 1954, in respect of injuries said to have been suffered by him by an accident which had taken place on the 18th of August, 1950, while he was in the employment of the respondent and in the course of that employment. The application stated that while the applicant had been on duty as a Watchman at night, his left hand got entangled in two live electric wires as a result of which he received a severe electric shock culminating in a weakening and disfigurement of his left hand, permanent loss of hearing and loss of teeth. According to him, his monthly wages were RS 70 and on that basis he claimed a lump sum payment of Rs. 2,000. That figure was arrived at after giving credit for Rs. 58 which, it was said, had already been paid by the respondent. At the foot of the application there was a note to the effect that the case could not be filed in time, as the applicant had been paid some amount and had then been promised the balance which was to be paid at the time of his discharge.
( 3 ) IN his written statement the respondent denied that any person of the name of Kali Das Ghosal had been in his employment on or about the 18th of August, 1950. He added that one Kali Das Ghosal had served his domestic house-hold as a cook for a short term in a purely casual vacancy and that when a few months later, he had turned up again and asked for employment, he had again been given casual employment as a gardener to raise vegetables for purely domestic consumption in a plot of fallow land situated near his factory premises. As he had been employed merely as a domestic servant and subsequently as a gardener, the appellant, it was contended, could not possibly be a workman as contemplated by the Act, because he had never been employed in the respondent's trade or business. There was no specific denial of the facts alleged in the petition as regards the manner in which the accident was said to have occurred, but in paragraph 5 of his written statement, the respondent set out a series of denials under the letters (a) to (g) by which he broadly denied the existence of every component part or ingredient of the appellant's claim.
The defence of limitation was. however, taken in a specific form and it was contended that the cause alleged for the delay in filing the application did not not amount to sufficient cause and, therefore, the application was liable to be thrown out as time-barred.
( 4 ) THE learned Commissioner framed five specific issues. They were, whether the appellant's claim was barred by limitation, whether the accident had arisen out of and in the course of his employment, what the rate of his monthly wages was whether he had sustained any permanent partial disability and if so, to what extent and lastly whether he was a workman within the meaning of the Act.
( 5 ) THE principal issue was the issue of limitation and the learned Commissioner devcted the greater part of his judgment to its consideration. He held against the appellant, but proceeding to consider the other issues, he held in his favour in respect of each one of them. In view of his finding on the question of limitation, however, he dismissed the application.
( 6 ) I regret to have to say that the learned Commissioner did not pay to the evidence the attention which was required to be paid, nor does he seem to have approached the several issues framed bv him in a proper manner and with a full sense of their implication. Before us, Mr. Mukherjee Urged a single ground which was a ground against the learned Commissioner's finding on the question of limitation. The argument was that the principle which the learned Commissioner had applied was altogether wrong, because what he was required to find was
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
