Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 751
2006(2) JLJ 203
A.K. Mishra and U.C. Maheshwari, JJ.
Jamila Begam (Smt.) and others v. D.R.M., Central Railway
Miscellaneous Appeals No. 1804 and 1805 of 2001:
against the order of Workmen ‘s Compensation Commissioner.
Jabalpur, in Case No. 27/98/fatal;
Decided on 28.7.2005.
Hansraj Bharti for appellants;
Kuldcep Singh for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 -- S. 30 -- finding that workman died while discharging his duty -- is a finding of fact -- cannot be questioned in appeal as it is not a substantial question of law.
The husband of claimant No.1 and father of other claimants namely, Late Lal Khan, was an employee as Gangman under the employment of the said respondent employer and on the date of the incident dated 18.4.1997, he was posted at PWI(R), Damoh, and during the course of duty he was discharging his official functions at Makroniya railway station at about 7:30 O‘clock in the evening where due to some altercation with the official of department he got cardiac pain and subsequently he died. Such death took place during the course of employment and discharging the official duty. [Para 3
Interest from the date of the death and penalty have not been awarded to claimants hence the claimants have filed an appeal for imposing penalty and award interest as provided u/s 4A of the said Act, while the employer has filed an appeal for setting aside the aforesaid impugned order passed by the Commissioner. [Para 5
Held: According to our considered opinion, the finding that death of the deceased employee took place during the course of employment while discharging the official functions as given on appreciation of the evidence and documents, is a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence, findings are not shown to be preverse in any manner and cannot be disturbed by invoking jurisdiction of the appeal u/s 30 of the Act, as such the finding of fact cannot be foundation for framing the substantial questions of law and thus we do not find any questions of law much less a substantial question of law in the appeal of employer. AIR 1954 Born. 180 and AIR 1933 Nag 272 relied on. [Para 11
(2) Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 -- Ss. 4A (3) and 30 -interest not allowed as per provision of S.4A (3) -- provision being mandatory, award of interest made in appeal. [Paras 14 & 16
¼1½ deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 && /kkjk 30 && fu"d"kZ fd deZdkj dh e`R;q vius drZO; dk fuoZgu djrs le; gqbZ && rF;kRed fu"d"kZ gS && vihy esa iz‘uxr ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;kasfd og fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u ugha gSA
nkosnkj Ø-1 dk ifr rFkk vU; nkosnkjks dk firk vFkkZr~ fnoaxr yky [kka izR;FkhZ fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa xSaxesu ds :i esa deZpkjh Fkk rFkk ?kVuk ds fnu 18-4-1997 dks og ih MCY;w vkb ¼jsy½] neksg esa rSukr Fkk rFkk drZO; ds vuqØe esa og la/;k ds yxHkx 7%30 cts dejkSfu;k jsy LVs‘ku ij vius inh; d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgk Fkk tgk¡ foHkkx ds in/kkjh ls dqN dgk&lquh gksus ds dkj.k mlds àn; esa osnuk gqbZ vkSj ifj.kker% mldh e`R;q gks xbZA e`R;q fu;kstu ds vuqØe esa rFkk inh; drZO; dk fuoZgu djrs le; gqbZA ¿ iSjk 3À
nkosnkjksa dks e`R;q ds fnukad ls C;kt rFkk ‘kkfLr vf/kfu.khZr ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, nkosnkjksa us ‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir fd, tkus rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4d ds v/khu ;Fkk micaf/kr C;kt vf/kfu.khZr fd, tkus ds fy, vihy Qkby dh gS tcfd fu;kstd us vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr iwoksZDr vkf{kIr vkns‘k vikLr djkus ds fy, Qkby dh gSA ¿ iSjk 5À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh lqfoosfpr jk; esa] lk{; vkSj nLrkostksa ds ewY;kadu ij fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ fd e`rd deZpkjh dh e`R;q inh; d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu djrs gq, fu;kstu ds vuqØe ds nkSjku gqbZ Fkh] lk{; ds mfpr ewY;kadu ij vk/kkfjr rF;kRed fu"d"kZ gS] fu"d"kZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ls foi;ZLr ugha n‘kkZ, x, gSa rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30 ds v/khy vihy dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ys dj fo{kqC/k ugha fd, tk lds] bl izdkj rF;kRed fu"d"kZ fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr djus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk] vr% gekjs fu"d"kZ esa fu;kstd dh vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz‘u gh ugha gSA] fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u rks nwj dh ckr gSA , vkb vkj 1954 cacbZ 180 rFkk , vkb vkj 1933 ukx- 272 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼2½ deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 && /kkjk 4d ¼3½ rFkk 30 && /kkjk 4d ¼3½ mica/kkuqlkj C;kt eatwj ugha fd;k x;k && mica/k vkKkid gksus ds dkj.k vihy esa C;kt vf/kfu.khZr fd;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 14 ,oa 16À
Maheshwari, J.-- 1. The appeals are preferred u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 8.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Labour Court No. 1. Jabalpur (in short 'Commissioner') in case No. 27/98/Fetal The MA No. 1804/01 is initiated at the instance of claimant for granting the interest and penalty on amount of compensation as ordered. while the MA No. 1805/01 has been preferred for setting aside the award at the instance of the employer Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway. Jabalpur (M.P.).
2. The appellants of MA No. 1804/01 have been imp-leaded as respondents in MA No. 1805/01 and respondents of aforesaid former appeal is the appellant in the later appeal and they are called in this order as claimants and employer.
3. The husband of claimant No.1 and father of other claimants namely, Late Lal Khan, was an employee as Gangman under the employment of the said respondent employer and on the date of the incident dated 18.4.1997, he was posted at PWI(R). Damoh. and during the course of duty he was discharging his official functions at Makroniya railway station at about 7:30 O'clock in the evening where due to some altercation with the official of department he got cardiac pain and subsequently he died. Such death took place during the course of employment and discharging the official duty. All claimants being legal representatives and dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Deceased employee was aged 38 years on the date of the incident while getting salary Rs. 2.000/- per month. Thus. the claim was preferred u/s 3 of the Act for Rs. 1.89.560/-.
4. In reply of employer. it was denied that deceased Lal Khan died during the course of the employment and discharging the official duty. It is also pleaded that death of Lal Khan has not taken 'place during employment and discharging the official duty, no incident has taken place as mentioned by the claimant. The incident of altercation with other officials has also been denied. The claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
5. In view of the aforesaid pleadings learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Labour Court. Jabalpur has framed the issues and recorded evidence of respective parties. On appreciation of it by holding that the deceased was an employee and suffered heart attack during the course of discharging the official duty and died. His age was found to be 45 years. Deceased was getting Rs. 1,900/- per month and by saddling the liability for compensation against the employer ordered to pay Rs.1,06,968/- along with interest @ 9 per cement per annum from the date of tiling the application, i.e.. 19.6.1998 and interest from the date of the death and penalty have not been awarded to claimants hence the claimants have filed an appeal for imposing penalty and award interest as provided u/s 4A of the said Act, while the employer has filed an appeal for setting aside the aforesaid impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
6. Shri Kuleep Singh. learned counsel for employer in MA No. 1805/01 has submitted that in view of the evidence available on record, although deceased was an employee of the employer but at the time of death he was not discharging any official function as such he was not on duty. According to his submission death of Lal Khan has not taken place because of due to any accident during the course of employment in discharge of the duty. He died on aforesaid date at 7:20 p.m. while his duty was to begin from 7:30 p.m. to 11 :30 a.m., as per his submission after lunch the deceased did not turn up on duty and before duty hours he was found dead. So employer was not responsible to indemnify the claim as filed by claimants. He further submitted that the instant appeal has been filed on two substantial questions of law.
7. "Firstly, whether deceased died during the course of his employment while he was on duty and finding of
