Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
DEVIBEHN DUDHABHAI, WD/o.DHDHA RAJA - Appellant
Versus
MANAGER,liberty TALKIES - Respondent
First Appeal1220 of .
Decided On : 12/03/1993
Words & Phrase-`Accident and `arisen out of and -in course of employment -Sec. 3, Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923-In -the present case, heart attack caused due to strain and exertion is -compensable injury under section 3.
In the light of the facts and circumstances emerging -from the record of the present case, while viewed in the background -of the relevant case law, it has got to be held that, the workman-Dudhabhai -died of heart attack and there was a pre-existing disease of tuberculosis, -which was accelerated and aggravated by the strain and exertion of -the work, which the deceased was doing and has culminated in his death, -then the failure of heart had a direct nexus with the employment which -the deceased was doing for more than 14 to 15 hours a day. Therefore, -the injury sustanied by the deceased had arisen out of and in the -course of his employment with his employer and, therefore, it is compensable -in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen s Compensation -Act. It could very well be said that acceleration or aggravation of -an employee s heart condition, thereby causing death or disability, -may constitute a compensable injury within the meaning of the Workmen s -Compensation Act. The sudden manifestation of the heart condition -from the effect of strain or over-exertion at work constitutes an -accidental injury within the meaning of the Act.
[Paras 28 & 26]
Interpretation of Statute-Workmen s Compensation -Act, 1923-Provision of-It is a beneficial legislation-Provisions -to be broadly and liberally construed.
The provisions of the Workmen s Compensation Act should -be broadly and liberally construed, so as to advance the evident intent -and purpose and not to retard them. The Court should, therefore, favour -adoption of liberal and lenient construction of words "by accident -arising out of and in the course of his employment".
[Para 26]
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923-Secs. 8, 17 & -28-Compromise between workmen and employer-Procedural safeguards -to be followed-Alleged agreement not legally recognizable.
The alleged settlement is legally not recognizable, in -view of the provisions of Sections 8, 17 and 28 of the Act. Keeping -an eye on the meaning and benevolent provision made in the interest -of workmen, the Parliament, in its wisdom, has also made several safeguards -against such unscrupulous, mischievious and baseless pleas of settlement -with the workmen or the dependents.
[Para 35]
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923-Secs. 4 and 4A-Compensation- -Computation-Penalty-In the present case penalty under section -4A allowed.
The deceased workman, in the present case died on 27th -March, 1979. Therefore, the relevant provisions then applicable are -required to be examined. There is no dispute about the fact that the -deceased workman was earning Rs. 165 /- per month as a Door Keeper, -at the relevant time. The conjoint reading of the provisions incorporated -in Schedule IV and Section 4 of the Act will make it clear that the -claimants will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 16,800/-. As such this -aspect is no longer in controversy. Considering the facts and circumstances -and the salary, which was paid to the deceased workman at the relevant -time, the widow and the minor are entitled to an amount of Rs. 16,800/-. -It is very clear from the provisions of Section 4-A of the act that, -where an employer is in default in payment the compensation no sooner -it fell due within one month thereof, the Commissioner has a jurisdiction -and authority to award interest as also in addition levy penalty not -exceeding 50 per cent of the amount of compensation. There is no reason -why the powers under Section 4-A of the Act should not be exercised -while awarding the amount of compensation. This is a fit case to exercise -the discretionary power in favour of the widow and the minor of the -deceased workman.
( 1 ) WHETHER appellant-Devibehn widow of workman is entitled to compensation in a claim for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (the Act) for the fatal employment injuries sustained by her husband Dudha Raja and unfortunately whose case is travelling in a long legal conduit pipe for a spell of more than 1 decades. What a travesty of justice ? Appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Porbandar in Workmen Compensation Case No. 17 of 1979. A short spectrum of facts leading to the rise of this appeal may be enumerated at this juncture.
( 2 ) ON 2 6/03/1979 deceased workman-Dudha Raja who was working as a door-keeper in Liberty Talkies Porbandar sustained serious accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment culminating in his death on the next day in hospital. The cause of injury and death was heart attack. Widow of the workman for her and on behalf of her minor son inter alia contended that they are dependents of the deceased workman and that the deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs. 165. 00. Therefore the original applicants claimed an amount of Rs. 16800. 00 plus costs and interest from the original opponents.
( 3 ) ORIGINAL opponent inter alia contended by filing written statement at Exh. 12 that though the deceased workman Dudha Raja was employed as a workman on the date of heart attack he was not victim of employment injury. It was denied that on 26-3-1979 deceased workman had sustained employment injuries in the course of employment by accident. It was also denied that on account of such injury on the next day the workman died. No doubt it was admitted that the deceased workman had expired as a result of heart attack but it was contended that there was no nexus between the death and the employment of the workman. It was further contended that the deceased workman had died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering and therefore it could not be said that his death was caused out and in the course of his employment. Thus the entire claim was disputed.
( 4 ) THE learned Commissioner had framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties at Ex. 16. The original applicants relied on evidence of six witnesses. The oral evidence of applicants is consisted of the following six witnesses : (1) Devibehn Dudha original applicant widow of the deceased. (2) Kala Maya Co-worker. (3) Hemendra Ratilal Co-worker. (4) Dr. U. G. Nathawani. (5) Dr. Navinchandra Joshi Medical Officer. (6) Dr. A. M. Ruparel. The opponents have relied on the evidence of the following two witnesses : (1) Prabhashanker Joshi Manager. (2) Gandalal Tribhovandas Thakkar husband of opponent No. 2. The parties have also relied on the documents to which reference would be made as when required at the proper stage.
( 5 ) UPON appreciation of the facts and circumstances and evidence the learned Commissioner dismissed the application on 27/03/1981. The learned Commissioner held that the original applicants failed to prove that the heart attack was caused by the accident and that it is arising out the employment. It was also found that the accident had not arisen in the course of the employment of the workman. The application for compensation came to be dismissed. Hence the original applicants have now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity.
( 6 ) FIRSTLY the following admitted facts may be enumerated : (1) That deceased-Dudha Raja was a workman; (2) That he was working as a door-keeper in Liberty Talkies at Porbandar; (3) That the deceased-workman was working for more than 14 to 15 hours a day in the theatre; (4) That he was earning Rs. 165. 00 per month; (5) That he had suffered a heart attack when he was on duty on 26/03/1979; (6) That the heart attack sustained by the workman while he was on duty resulted into his death on the next day like that 27/03/1979; (7) That the deceased-workman
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
