Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1951 DIGILAW 13 (MAD)

Untitled judgment

1951-01-05

P.V.RAJAMANNAR, PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR

body1951
Judgment.- This is a reference made by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, under section 27 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the following circumstances: One Kamaraju was employed by the Admiralty Civil Engineer, Kakinada, to unload girders brought by a slip crane, and, while so employed, on the 25th June 1946, he received an injury by accident to his right fore-finger which was caught in between the girders. He filed an application on 16th December, 1946, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act praying that the Commissioner may determine the amount of compensation payable to him. When notice of this application went to the Admiralty Civil Engineer, he was advised that the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, does not bind the Crown in the right of the United Kingdom and that the workmen employed by the Admiralty have therefore no legal claim, under that Act. It was further indicated in the reply sent from His Majesty’s Naval Base at Bombay that the case fell to be dealt with under the Treasury Injury Warrants and not under the Act. The Commissioner thereupon has made this reference on the question whether the case can be dealt with under the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act or not. As no one appeared for the Admiralty Civil Engineer represented by the Cashier, His Majesty’s Naval Base, we requested the learned Government Pleader to assist us. The application was filed in December, 1946, at a time when India was still a part of the British Empire. The question is whether the Indian Act applies to the Crown in respect of a transaction involving the British Navy. It is a well established principle of constitutional law that the Crown is not bound by a statute unless expressly named or bound by necessary implication. Vide Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. VI, page 482. It is also a part of the Common Law that no proceeding, Civil or Criminal, is maintainable against the Crown in the Ordinary Courts of law. Vide Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. VI, page 486. Vide Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. VI, page 482. It is also a part of the Common Law that no proceeding, Civil or Criminal, is maintainable against the Crown in the Ordinary Courts of law. Vide Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. VI, page 486. In England the corresponding Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1925 contains a special provision, section 33(1) which runs thus: “This Act shall not apply to persons in the Naval or Military or Air service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown to whom this Act would apply if” the employee were a private person: provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Crown, the head of that Department of the Royal Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident shall be deemed to be his employer". In the Indian Act, section 2, sub-section (2) declares that the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a legal authority or of any department acting on behalf of the Crown shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be the trade or business of such authority or department. Though in legal theory the Crown is one and indivisible throughout the Empire, nevertheless the Crown appears in various aspects, and, in each part of his Dominions, the King has a distinct personality for certain purposes. In re Silver Bros. Ltd.1, Viscount Dunedin observed thus: "It is true that there is only one Crown, but as regards Crown revenues and Crown property by legislation assented to by the Crown there is a distinction made between the revenues and property in the Province and the revenues and property in the Dominion. There are two separate statutory purses. In each the ingathering and expending authority is different". Therefore a distinction must be made between the Crown in right of the United Kingdom and the Crown in right of any of the Colonies and the Crown in right of the Federation of India or a Provincial Government of India. No doubt the Crown in right of the Federation of India and any Provincial Government is bound by a valid Federal or Provincial enactment (Vide section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935). No doubt the Crown in right of the Federation of India and any Provincial Government is bound by a valid Federal or Provincial enactment (Vide section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935). But it does not follow that the Crown in right of the United Kingdom is bound by any Indian enactment however valid it might be and binding on the Crown in right of the Federation or Provinces of India. In this case it is obvious that the claim can in no sense be against the Government of India. The claim is against the British Admiralty. It must therefore be held that the application was not maintainable under the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act on the date it was filed. After the Indian Independence Act and after the Constitution came into force, on 26th January, 1950, the position has become worse for the applicant. India is no longer in the British Empire. It has become a Sovereign Republic. Though for certain purposes India has chosen to remain in the Commonwealth, India does not acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Crown. Any claim therefore against the British Crown will be in the nature of a claim against a foreign Sovereign. One of the cardinal principles of international law is that every Sovereign State respects the independence of every other Sovereign State and as a consequence of this absolute independence and of the international comity which underlies the relations between Sovereign States, each State declines to exercise by means of any of its Courts, jurisdiction over the person of any Sovereign or Ambassador, or over the public property of any State. Vide The Parlement Belge2. A Sovereign State cannot be sued in the Courts of a foreign State, unless of course it voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the Court concerned. Vide Oppenheim’s International Law, 1948 Edn., Vol. 1, pages 238 and 239; Fenwick’s International Law, 1948th Edn. page 307 and Dicey’s Conflict of Laws, 1949th edn. pages 131 and 132. Any claim against the British Admiralty will be really a claim against the British Crown which is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals of the Indian Republic. The application therefore cannot be proceeded with now. It may be that the applicant has other remedies, but we are not called upon to deal with them. The reference is answered accordingly. V.P.S. ----- Reference answered.