Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 332 (HP)

Shakuntala Devi v. H. P. S. E. B.

2005-09-07

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, HPSEB, Shimla in case No. NFA 94/89 decided on 5.5.1999. 2. The admitted facts are that deceased Shyam Lal was working as Assistant Lineman (ALM) with the H.P. State Electricity Board (Board). He was posted at village Bhakhra under Gurthai Section in Ganguwal Sub Division. On 4.2.1986 at about 10 p.m. when Shyam Lal was inside his private accommodation which he had taken on rent there was a fire and Shyam Lal unfortunately expired in the said fire. 3. The petitioners who are the widow and children of Shyam Lal filed a petition claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that the deceased was supposed to be on duty for 24 hours. According to them he had to attend complaints at all hours and therefore he had to stay at night in his residence which also served as a complaint room since the Board had not provided any separate official accommodation for official purpose. This petition was contested by the Board. The main contention was that the deceased did not die in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was alleged that in fact the deceased was asleep and was in drunken state when the fire took place. According to the Board the duty hours of the deceased were only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and thereafter he was not on duty. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation dismissed the claim petition by holding that the deceased was not on duty when the accident occurred and that the accident had nothing to do with his employment. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned senior Counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the Commissioner is totally illegal and incorrect. He submits that the death of the deceased had a direct nexus and causal connection with his employment. He states that there is no complaint room provided by the Board and, therefore, the deceased was to remain in his room where complaint register was also maintained. 5. On the other hand Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the Board has supported the award passed by the Commissioner. 6. The admitted case is that no separate complaint room is provided at village Bhakhra. 5. On the other hand Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the Board has supported the award passed by the Commissioner. 6. The admitted case is that no separate complaint room is provided at village Bhakhra. One ALM is posted there who has to attend to the complaints. PW-2 B.S. Chandel who is Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board states that the complaints have to be attended 24 hours a day. He states that there is neither any office nor residential accommodation for the ALM. He states that Bhakhara comes under Gurthai where there is a J.E. Office and the distance between the two is 8 to 9 Kms. In cross examination this witness has stated that normal duty hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the complaints are to be attended during this time. He further states that ALM enters the complaint in the complaint register which is maintained by him. He further states that normally the ALM attend complaints only upto 5 p.m. and not thereafter. 7. PW-3 Ram Krishan is the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhakhra. According to him the ALM is on duty all the 24 hours. He states that he had seen Shyam Lal attending complaint at night on many occasions. At many times he used to attend a complaint at night for fixing the fuse. 8. PW-4 is Kehar Singh who is also ALM. He states that emergency work is done 24 hours in a day. He states that public complaints are entertained in the residence since no office is provided by the Board. In cross examination he states that there are no written instructions that they have to work after 5 p.m. He states that Shyam Lal himself used to pay the rent for the residence. He has denied the suggestion that no complaint register was maintained there. 9. DW-1 is one K.P. Singh, XEN of the Board. According to him the duty hours are only from 9 a.m. to 5 p m. and thereafter on emergency basis the ALM can be called to do work. He has denied the suggestion that the ALMs attend the complaint from the place where they reside and the complaint register is maintained there. 10. DW-2 is R.K. Dhiman whose statement is also to the similar effect. He has denied the suggestion that the ALMs attend the complaint from the place where they reside and the complaint register is maintained there. 10. DW-2 is R.K. Dhiman whose statement is also to the similar effect. PW-3 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and evidence of DW-4 is not relevant for the decision of the present issue. 11. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned senior Counsel has relied upon the following observations made by this Court in Leeala Devi and Anr. v. Ram Lal Rahu and Anr. ILR 1988 HP 235 : 6. It is well settled that the material words occurring in the relevant statutory provision, namely, "if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" have to be liberally interpreted. This judicial approach has resulted in the theory of extended liability being propounded. Even unexplained deaths, which are often characterized as natural deaths, have made Sherlock Holmeses of many Judges (see: Horovitz in his work "Injury and Death under Workmen's Compensation Laws"). If the employee's unexplained or apparently natural death has occurred during the course of employment, the adjudicator is not relieved of the responsibility of finding out whether, there was any causal connection between the nature of employment and the death, whether the employment was an attributable cause or whether it accelerated the death, whether the death was not only due to the disease from which the workman was suffering but also on account of the factors which have a bearing upon or which are coupled with the employment etc. if such or similar factors are present, then, the employer is liable and it can be said that the death occurred as a consequence of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner having failed to appreciate correctly the true meaning and ambit of the expression "by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" occurring in the material statutory provision has committed an error in the field of substantive law. 12. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Devibehn Dudhabhai v. Manager, Liberty Talkies and Anr., wherein it has been held that the death due to strain of work would amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 12. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Devibehn Dudhabhai v. Manager, Liberty Talkies and Anr., wherein it has been held that the death due to strain of work would amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Reliance is also placed in Surajbai W/o Amardas v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. 13. On the other hand Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel submits that the normal duty hours of the ALM were only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. According to him this was a pure and simple accident and had no connection whatsoever with the employment of the deceased. 14. From the evidence on record it stands proved that an ALM operates out of his own residential quarters. He attends to the work in the villages. There is some dispute as to whether he has to attend work only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or thereafter. From the evidence on record it is clear that even after 5 p.m. he may have to attend work especially when the said work is emergent in nature. It also stands proved on record that the complaint register is maintained in the residence of the ALM. The rent for the residence is paid by ALM himself and not by the Board. Can it be said that the residence of the ALM is the office of the Board? In my opinion this cannot be said. The mere fact that no office is provided by the Board and the fact that the complaint register has to be maintained is not sufficient to hold that the residence of the lineman gets converted into the office of the Board. One cannot loose sight of the fact that ALMs are posted without office in villages. These villages are small villages where people can call them from their residence or any other place where they are present. It is not the case of the claimants also that ALM is supposed to remain at his residence 24 hours a day. The duty hours of the ALM are only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It may be true, that after 5 p.m. he attends to emergent work but it cannot be said that he is on duty 24 hours a day. His normal duty hours are only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 15. The duty hours of the ALM are only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It may be true, that after 5 p.m. he attends to emergent work but it cannot be said that he is on duty 24 hours a day. His normal duty hours are only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 15. In the present case the deceased died while in sleep. A fire took place in his residence and he died in the said fire. There is nothing on record to show that this fire had any connection with his employment. It is no-doubt true that social beneficial legislation like the Workman Compensation Act must be interpreted liberally. However, under the garb of liberal interpretation one cannot do violence to the clear-cut language of the Act. The residence of the ALM cannot be termed to be the office of the Board. The mere fact that the ALM was to attend emergency duty after 5 p.m. would not amount to his being on duty for 24 hours. Admittedly the fire took place when the ALM was asleep at his residence. It had nothing to do with his employment. Therefore, in my opinion the Commissioner was right in holding that the accident had no causal connection with the employment of the deceased. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.