Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1705 (PNJ)

N. S. & Company v. Rajwant Kaur

2011-09-07

MOHINDER PAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Harpal Singh (deceased-workman) was admittedly working as Senior Supervisor and was also performing the duties of Security Guard with the appellant. He was earning `3,500/-per month from this employment. Harpal Singh as Senior Supervisor was responsible for loading and unloading of food grains from the goods trains. He was on duty at Sub Station at Patti on 2.4.2008 and at the relevant time he was going on scooter bearing registration No.PB-02Q-1872 in connection with the work of the appellant and in the way near Chusalwar Morh he met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. He died during the course of his employment. The report in this regard was registered with Police Station bearing FIR No.5 dated 3.4.2008. Rajwant Kaur (widow), Sukhwinder Singh (son) and Harman Preet Kaur (daughter) respectively of Harpal Singh (respondents No.1 to 3) (hereinafter referred to as `the claimants') filed the claim petition on 31.3.2009 before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Amritsar-3 (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') against the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5. The Commissioner vide award dated 31.1.2011 awarded compensation of `2,92,297/-to the claimants from the employer i.e. the appellant. It was ordered by the Commissioner that the claimants would also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from 45 days from the date of accident till its realization. The Commissioner further ordered that if the amount of compensation along with interest accrued is not deposited within 45 days of the award, then the rate of interest shall be 15 per cent per annum. The employer (appellant) has filed this appeal to challenge the award dated 31.1.2011 passed by the Commissioner. 2. The case of the claimants is that the workman-Harpal Singh on the directions of his employer was going on scooter when he met with an accident and died and, on the other hand, the employer's case is that the workman was going with his brother Jarnail Singh and met with a fatal accident. 2. The case of the claimants is that the workman-Harpal Singh on the directions of his employer was going on scooter when he met with an accident and died and, on the other hand, the employer's case is that the workman was going with his brother Jarnail Singh and met with a fatal accident. Before the Commissioner, Ashwani Kumar (appellant) appeared as his own witness as RW-1 and stated that on 2.4.2008 at 10.00 p.m. deceased Harpal Singh (deceased) was going to home with his brother Jarnail Singh on a scooter and met with a fatal accident and he did not die during the course of his employment but he admitted in his cross-examination that arrival and departure of goods trains may be late from fixed time and the deceased was responsible for loading and unloading of the goods from the goods trains. 3. I have heard Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. 4. During the course of arguments, much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point that deceased-Harpal Singh does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as he was working as Senior Supervisor. Learned counsel argued that Harpal Singh (workman) had not died during the course of his employment. He placed reliance on Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, 2009 (3) AICJ 78; Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another v. Francis De Costa and another, AIR 1997 SC 432; Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 150; Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and others, AIR 1958 SC 881 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mumtaz and others, 2007 ACJ 974 to contend that Senior Supervisor does not fall within the definition of workman and Harpal Singh had not died during the course of employment. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the award passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the award passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. 6. Once it is established that the job of Harpal Singh (deceased) was to supervise the loading and unloading of goods from the goods trains, it cannot be said that going to home at 10.00 p.m. was outside the course of his employment specially when there is no specific time prescribed for loading or unloading of the railway wagons. Therefore, the appellant cannot wriggle out from its liability by saying that workman did not die in the course of his employment or that he does not fall within the definition of workman. In Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur (supra), the deceased was working as Manager of the Bank and it was held that he could not be treated as workman. In Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another v. Francis De Costa and another (supra), the employee was on his way to factory, a place of employment, when he met with an accident one kilometer away from said place. In Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (supra), the death of workman occurred due to drowning while taking bath in pond. In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and others (supra), the workman drowned while returning home from salt work on a public ferry boat. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mumtaz and others (supra) the employee took motor cycle of his employer and went to his wife's place to see her and on the way back met with accident sustaining fatal injuries. It was held that the said act was not part of the employment duty. In the present case, the workman was working as Senior Supervisor and doing the job of loading and unloading of goods from the goods trains and he was going on a scooter in connection with to his work on the direction of his employer, when he met with an accident. Besides, he was also doing the work of Security Guard. Therefore, the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Besides, he was also doing the work of Security Guard. Therefore, the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts and circumstances of the case lead to the certain conclusion that the workman had died during the course of his employment with the employer. 7. In view of the fact that the deceased-workman was an employee of the appellant and he died during the course of employment while giving duty on the directions of his employer, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the dependents of the workman is concerned as the amount of compensation i.e. 2,92,297/-is not at all on the excessive side. However, the claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Commissioner. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. 8. With the above modification in the impugned award regarding payment of interest by the appellant, this appeal is are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.