SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1937 Supreme(Cal) 284

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Derbyshire, C.J, B.K. Mukherjea, J.
Pasupati Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Kelvin Jute Mills - Respondent
Decided On : 05-05-1937

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act vests in the dependents upon the death of the workman and passes to the legal representatives of the dependant upon her death, subject to the conditions of the Succession Act.

Headnote:

Compensation - Workmen's Compensation - Section 2(1)(d), Section 3, Section 4, Section 8(1), Section 8(4), Section 8(5), Section 8(6) - The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly focusing on the definition of 'dependant', liability of the employer to pay compensation, deposit of compensation with the Commissioner, and the rights of dependents to the compensation money. The court emphasizes that the right to compensation vests in the dependents upon the death of the workman and cannot be divested by the Commissioner. It also compares the Indian Act with the English Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 and highlights the absence of a provision in the Indian Act similar to the one in the English Act of 1925, which would have restricted the right of the legal representative of a dependant to claim compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant appealed against the Commissioner's decision to decline awarding compensation for the death of a workman. The appellant's mother, the only dependant, died after the workman's death, and the Commissioner ordered the compensation money to be repaid to the employers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the right to compensation vested in the dependents upon the death of the workman and could not be divested by the Commissioner. It held that the right passed to the legal representatives of the dependant upon her death, subject to the conditions of the Succession Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the right to compensation vested in the dependents upon the death of the workman and whether it passed to the legal representatives of the dependant upon her death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to compensation vested in the dependents upon the death of the workman and could not be divested by the Commissioner. It emphasized that the right passed to the legal representatives of the dependant upon her death, subject to the conditions of the Succession Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further investigation.

JUDGMENT

Derbyshire, C.J. - The appellant appeals from a decision by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, whereby the Commissioner declined to award the appellant any sum of compensation in respect of the death of a work-man killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The facts are as follows: On 5th October 1934, one Hari Charan Day, the head engine driver in the Kelvin Jute Mills, was injured at his work. He died on 13th October 1934. The only person who could claim to be dependant upon the deceased within the meaning of the Act was one Kalo Moni Dutt. She was the daughter of the deceased but a widow. She had one son, the appellant, now aged seven years, then aged five years, who lived with her in the house of her father, the deceased workman. On 24th November 1934, the employers, pursuant to Section 8(1) of the Act, deposited with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the sum of Rs. 3,500 in respect of their obligations under the Act. On 29th November 1934, Kalo Moni Dutt died leaving the appellant surviving her. On 25th April 1935, the Commissioner heard the application of the appellant (through his uncle) for an award to be made in his favour of the compensation, viz., Rs. 3,500. The Commissioner rejected this application on the ground that no dependant within the meaning of the Act then (i.e., on 25th April 1935) existed. Accordingly he ordered the compensation money to be repaid to the employers u/s 8(4) of the Act.

2. The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows: u/s 2(1)(d) a "dependant" includes a widowed daughter if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. (The child of such widowed daughter is not a dependant within the section). Section 3(1) provides that:

If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

3. There is a proviso, but neither that nor the rest of the section affects the present case. Sub-s. (2) of Section 3, deals with the case of contraction of the occupational diseases. Sub-s. (3) gives the Governor-General in Council power to add to the schedule of occupational diseases. Section 4(1) provides that:

Subject to the provisions of this Act the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results from the injury.

4. Then follow provisions specifying how the amount of compensation is to be ascertained. Section 8(1) provides that:

No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death... shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the commissioner.

Sub-section (4): On the deposit of any money under Sub-section (1) as compensation in respect of a deceased workman, the Commissioner shall deduct therefrom the actual cost of the workman's funeral expenses, to an amount not exceeding twenty five rupees and pay the same to the person by whom such expenses were incurred, and shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on each dependant in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependents to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied after any enquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependant exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid.

Sub-section (5): Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under Sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependents of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant.

Sub-section (6): Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a wom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top