Back
1952 Supreme(Cal) 180
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, S. R. DAS GUPTA
KESORAM COTTON MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
BAL GOVIND - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 128 Of 1951
Decided On : AUGUST 25, 1952
The mere fact that a workman continued in the employment of his employers, could not, as a matter of law, be sufficient cause for not preferring a claim within the statutory period whatever the other circumstances.
Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 10 - LIMITATION - SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PREFERING CLAIM WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD - WORKMAN CONTINUED IN EMPLOYMENT AND PAID SAME WAGES DESPITE REDUCED WORKING CAPACITY - HELD, SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOWN.
Fact of the Case:
A workman suffered an injury in September 1948 while working at the appellant's mill. He continued to work but was given lighter work and the same pay. In July 1950, he was asked to return to his previous job, which he was unable to do, and was subsequently dismissed. He filed an application for compensation in December 1949, more than a year after the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner held that the workman had sufficient cause for not preferring the claim within one year from the occurrence of the accident, as he had been continued in employment, given lighter work, and paid the same wages.
Issues: Whether the workman had made a claim within the period laid down in Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner's finding was reasonable and correct in principle. The court noted that the workman had suffered an injury that reduced his working capacity, that the employers knew of the injury and reduced working capacity, and that they continued to employ him, paid him the same wages, and put him on a lighter job. The court found that these circumstances gave the workman sufficient cause not to provoke a conflict with his employers and not to prefer a claim until his interests were prejudicially affected by dismissal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE only question of substance argued in this case is one of limitation. The respondent used to be a workman under the appellant -- Keshoram Cotton Mills Ltd.-- and was employed in the hosiery department. In September 1948, he was going up a ladder with a load on his head, when it fell and as the workman himself slipped, the load descended on his left leg and in doing so, passed across his chest and spine. The injury caused by that accident was that he suffered a fracture of the left ankle which has been described as "pott's fracture" and some injuries on his chest and spine.
( 2 ) THE workman was absent from duty for a few days, but continued in the employment of the Mill. He was, however, given lighter work. In July 1950, he was apparently asked to return to the job of carrying loads which he was unable to do. Thereupon he was dismissed. The application for compensation was filed in Court on 17-12-1949.
( 3 ) IT is not necessary to refer to the other defences raised by the appellant. As usual, they included a plea that no accident had taken place at all and that, in any event, assuming that the workman had suffered an accident, he had not done so in the course of his employment. Those pleas have been laid to rest by the judgment of the commissioner and need not trouble us further.
( 4 ) THE question as to whether the respondent had made a claim within the period laid down in Section 10 of the Act is, however, a question of law, and Mr. Sanyal who appeared on behalf of the appellant, concentrated his argument on that question. He contended that the commissioner had been wrong in holding that the failure of the workman to prefer the claim within one year from the occurrence of the accident had been due to sufficient cause. It may be stated here that the learned Commissioner relied on the fact that the workman, after having suffered the injury and after his working capacity had been reduced, had been continued in employment, had been given lighter work and had been in receipt of the same pay. In view of those facts, he considered that the decision in -- 'salamat v. The Agent, East Indian Rly. ', AIR 1938 Cal 348 (A) covered the case and accordingly he held in favour of the workman.
( 5 ) MR. Sanyal contended that the mere fact that a workman after having suffered an accident, was retained in the employment of the employer could not be sufficient cause for his not perferring the claim within the statutory period. According to Mr. Sanyal, there would have to be some tacit understanding between the employer and the workman about paying his compensation in future if, on such facts, delay in preferring the claim was to be excused; or, at least, there would have to be something done by the employer which might create a belief in the workman that he could reasonably expect compensation, if need to claim it arose. In support of his contention Mr. Sanyal relied upon a series of cases, beginning inevitably with the decision in -- 'lingley v. Thomas Firth and Sons Ltd. ', (1921) 1 K B 655 (B ).
( 6 ) 'lingley's case (B)' as is well known, is the root authority on the question as to what is reasonable cause for not serving a notice or making a claim within the statutory period. The case if I may say so with respect, seems to have been widely misunderstood. The facts in that case were that a munition-worker was injured by a shell falling upon her toe and although, after that accident, she was in constant pain and could hardly work in a standing posture, she suppressed the accident from her employers and did everything in her power to make them think that she was in perfect health and in enjoyment of full working capacity. For example, if any of the officials employed by the concern she was serving, happened to pass before her, she used to stand up, just to create an impression that nothing whatever was the matter with her. It was pointed out by all the learned Judges who decided the case that the worker condu
