Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 217 (KER)

V. SUKUMARAN v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-03-25

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2002
Judgment :- Ext.P10 order issued by the 3rd respondent, the competent authority, is under challenge. It may not be necessary for me to refer to the minor details since this order had been passed in view of the directions of this Court in O.P.No. 15052/1994. The learned Judge had directed the respondents to reconsider the matter appropriately. Ext.P10, the consequential order held that the petitioner’s disablement assessed as 40% was not capable of attracting compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and hence his claims were not sustainable. This order is under challenge. The question arising for decision is as to whether assessment of disability would thereby make a person eligible for compensation, when it is not recognized as not arising from an employment injury. 2. A few facts that might be necessary for a proper appreciation of the claims are as given below. The petitioner was enrolled in the General Reserve Engineer Force in 1964. He had, during 1979, developed Osteoarthritis on the left knee with low back ache. After treatment, he had been placed under the Medical Category GREF III by a medical board date. 22.12.1978. On such medical re-categorisation, he was placed in Category II with 40% disability effective from 10.07.1979. Taking note of the above circumstances, he was engaged imposing restrictions for duty at high altitude areas and he had continued as such for the rest of his career. 3. After 26 years of rendering Qualifying Service, petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement and it was approved by the competent authority with effect from 30.09.1990. This was as per Rule 48A of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 and he had been struck off strength with effect from 1st of October, 1990. Thereafter, apparently in 1992, he had served Ext.P3 notice to the 3rd respondent demanding that as he has been re-categorised with 40% disablement, he has to be awarded compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to the extent of such disablement. This has been rejected and he had filed an Original Petition. A reconsideration of the case had been made as directed by the Court. The claim was rejected. 4. The present order proceed on the basis that the petitioner cannot be granted compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as the condition/disease about which he is concerned is not one covered under Schedule 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 5. A reconsideration of the case had been made as directed by the Court. The claim was rejected. 4. The present order proceed on the basis that the petitioner cannot be granted compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as the condition/disease about which he is concerned is not one covered under Schedule 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 5. Schedule III of the Act is traceable to Section 3 of the Act which deals with Employers liability for compensation. The basic requirement for award of compensation is that the employee should have suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 6. However, under Sub Section (2), if a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A, B or C as the case may be, of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an Occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of the Section. 7. Section 3(4) also in unambiguous terms lays down that save as provided as above, no compensation shall be payable in respect of any disease, unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. There is no case for the petitioner that such an injury had ever happened, or the disease was due to effect of cold in extreme cold climate. Hundreds of colleagues working with him had no such complaints, and the arthritis could be considered as one peculiar to his system unconnected with his nature of employment. 8. In the said circumstances, the decision cannot be held as arbitrary or liable to be interfered with. A reasonable approach is evident and it goes well with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is not every case of disablement that attracts liability for payment of compensation. Osteoarthritis was not an Occupational disease and it could not have been legal for the respondents to award compensation for the disability of the petitioner. His case appears to have been appreciated with sympathy and concern and the initiation of legal proceedings can best be termed as experimental. 9. The petitioner had been in service for over 11 years, after his disability was assessed and claim after a gap of 15 years for compensation is not maintainable. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed.