Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. L. Oza. and J. P. Bajpai, JJ.
M P ELECTRICITY BOARD JABALPUR
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION INDORE
Decided On : May 03,1980
(2) General Clauses Act, 1897-S. 6 - repeal without a saving clause effect.
The accident giving rise to the reimbursement proceedings took place on 20-3-1965, the Employees State Insurance Corporation instituted proceedings for reimbursement from the Factory, but before that section 66 was omitted with effect from 17-6-1967 by sect ion 29 of the Amending Act. The saving section 43 of the Amending Act was brought into force with effect from February 1968. The contention was that because of the omission of section 66 on the date of initiation of proceeding for reimbursement. The Insurance Court has no jurisdiction to award reimbursement, particularly in view or the fact that section 43 of the Amending Act was enforced with effect from February 1968.
Held: It is true that the provisions of section 43 of the Amending Act containing the saving clause were not in force on the date of the petition, and thus it was a case of repeal in the absence of a saving clause. But it is also equally true that for determining whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed law have been put to an end by the new enactment, we are not to inquire whether the new enactment has by itself by it's new provisions kept alive the rights and liabilities under the repealed law. On the contrary, what we have to see is whether it has taken away those rights and liabilities. Thus in this view of the matter even when a saving clause reserving the rights and liabilities under repealed law is absent in a new enactment, the same will neither be material nor decisive of the question of different intention because in such cases section 6 of the General Clauses Act will be attracted and the rights and liabilities acquired and accrued under the repealed law will remain saved unless there was something to infer that the Legislature intended to destroy the rights and liabilities already accrued. 1971 JLJ 800 referred to. [Para 11]
(3) Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-S. 82 (2) - scope of appeal is confined to substantial questions of law only. [Para 14]
(4) Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-S. 66-negligence of the employer to observe safety rules-remote possibilities of avoiding accident by adopting a particular course cannot be relied as justification for non observance of safety rules-Indian Electricity Rules. 1956-R. 64 (e).
(5) Electricity Rules 1956-R. 64 (e)-requirements of.
A transformer was required to be lifted. It was not made dead as required by Rule 64 (a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The Technical Officer who should have supervised the operations was also absent. An accident occurred and two persons died and three were injured.
Held: In normal course what was necessary for safe working was required to be done in the present case it was not so done, and on the contrary the Technical Officer who was expected to supervise the operation who had been assigned some other job also simultaneously preferred to leave the place. In the matter of observance of safety rules, certain remote possibilities of avoiding accidents by adopting a particular course cannot be relied as justification for non-observance of the requirement of rules. [Para 15]
When the safety rules require certain precautions to be taken, they are to be observed because such precautions are prescrioed after taking into account the possibility of negligent, ill advised or indolent conduct on the part of an employee. [Para 17]
( 1. ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of the connected Misc. Appeal No. 104/73 (M. P. Electricity Board and 5 others v. Employees state Insurance Corpn. , Indore), M. A. No. 105/73 (M. P. Electricity Board and 5 others v. Employees State Insurance Corp. , Indore), M. A. No. 106/73 (M. P. Electricity Board and 5 others v. Employees State Insurance Corp. , indore), and also 107 /73 (M. P. Electricity Board and 5 others v. Employees state Insurance Corp. , Indore), and since all these five appeals arise out of the common order made by Employees Insurance Court, involving the common point, they were linked together for hearing.
( 2. ) THESE miscellaneous appeals have been preferred before this Court by the M. P. Electricity Board, and its Officers, shown as appellants, under section 82 sub-section (2) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the order made by the Insurance Court at Indore, on 30th April 1973. The facts giving rise to the proceedings before the Insurance Court, out of which these appeals arise, were as below :-
( 3. ) RESPONDENT Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation), is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the insurance Act ). The appellant M. P. Electricity Board was the employer of the following 5 persons- (1) Ali Hussain S/o Kadarbhai; (2) Chandrakant; (3) Govind; (4) Madhukar; and (5) Maruti. The appellant board has its power-house at Indore. The aforesaid 5 persons were employed on respective jobs in the said power-house which is undisputedly governed by the provisions of the Factory Act. It was also not in dispute that the provisions of the Insurance Act were applicable to the above-referred establishment of the M. P. Electricity Board. It was further, not in dispute that on 20th of March, 1965, the above referred 5 employees received burn injuries in an accident undisputedly arising out of and during the course of employment. The injuries received by the 5 employees were also admitted to be employment injuries. Since the employees were covered by the policy of insurance, the Insurance Corporation had to pay compensation to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The details of compensation paid by the Insurance Corporation to the employees concerned are as below:-
( 4. ) THE accident in question arose while lifting a transformer. The necessity to lift the same arose for the purposes of taking out the bushes from the bottom of the penal for replacement. The said penal was admittedly a working one, and was alive with high voltage of current. As disclosed from the material on record, the said penal had a base-bar-chamber. It appears that while commencing operation on the said penal, the base-bar-chamber was not made dead, probably under the impression that when the transformer will be withdrawn and the chambers having been already dead, the automatic shutters of the chambers will close the same, there was no necessity for making the base-bar-chamber also dead, and the transformer could be safely lifted and removed. From the material on record, it further appears that while removing the transformer certain projected part of the base-bar-chamber was creating obstruction to the lifting of the chamber. The said part which was causing obstruction happened to be fitted to the base-bar-chamber with a nutt and bolt from inside. Ali Hussain under an impression that since he and his other associates have been put on the work of removing the transformer from the penal in question, the entire penal including the base-bar-chamber must have been made dead, not only as per common practice, but as per requirements under the rules framed under the electricity Act, in order to remove the obstruction, put his hands inside the base-bar-chamber for loosening the nutt by a spanner. It further appears that while doing so the spanner happened to fall down inside the cham
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
