Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1221 (PNJ)

UNION OF INDIA v. BABITA SHARMA

2013-09-11

RAKESH GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 18 and 328 of 1997 as both these appeals have arisen out of one common order dated 25.10.1996 of the Commissioner, Amritsar passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The facts, which emerge out from the impugned order, are that one Ramesh Kumar, who was employed as skilled Grade III against a permanent post with the respondent Railways, was posted at Northern Railway Mechanical Workshops, Amritsar (hereinafter called as Locomotive workshop or shed). On 20.9.1991 at 16.15 hrs, when Ramesh Kumar was coming out of the main gate of the Locomotive workshop to start his journey back to his home and he had taken the bicycle from the cycle stand adjoining the main gate of the workshop, there was great rush of cyclists and pedestrian co-workers. When the deceased just started riding his cycle, he was struck by 3/4 other cyclists who were also coming out from the cycle stand. The occurrence happened just in front of the main gate of Workshop. The rush of the co-workers was so much uncontrolled. The said Ramesh Kumar fell down and was run over by 3-4 cyclists. It was like a stampede and because of the falling down on the road and lying underneath the rush, he got several injuries on the head and became unconscious. After sometime, when the rush was controlled, he was taken to the Railway Doctor in unconscious state of mind and he never gained consciousness till his death at 6 a.m., on 21.9.1991. 2. The respondents filed claim application against the appellants seeking compensation for the death of Ramesh Kumar on the ground that accident occurred during the course of duty of the deceased as the stampede occurred due to uncontrolled rush of the co-workers and also due to the negligence of the employer and it took place just in front of main gate of the Railway Workshop while the deceased and other workers were starting from the place of their work. 3. The claim of the respondents was contested by the appellants by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that Ramesh Kumar died on 21.9.1991. It was averred that the accident took place outside the Railway Workshop, Amritsar. 3. The claim of the respondents was contested by the appellants by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that Ramesh Kumar died on 21.9.1991. It was averred that the accident took place outside the Railway Workshop, Amritsar. It was the further case of the appellants that wife of deceased Ramesh Kumar was provided compassionate employment and therefore, she could not be granted compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the applicants are estopped by their own act or omission to claim any compensation as per application under claim? OPR 5. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the arguments, the Commissioner, Amritsar under the Workmen's Compensation Act, vide impugned order dated 25.10.1996, assessed the amount of compensation at Rs. 83,368/- and further granted an interest @ 12%, the amount of which comes to Rs. 50,520/- and penalty @ 50% of the compensation to the extent of Rs. 41,684/- was also granted and thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,75,572/- was awarded to the claimants. 6. At this stage, it may further be noticed that the Commissioner, Amritsar, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, also awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid personally by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway Mechanical Workshops, Amritsar (appellant in FAO No. 328 of 1997) to be paid to the applicant-claimants. 7. Both these appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, Amritsar, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that death of the deceased employee has not been caused during the course of employment and therefore, no compensation was payable to him. Elaborating further, learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the deceased employee had died outside the Workshop by falling from cycle after the duty hours and therefore, it cannot be said that he died during the course of his employment. It has been further argued on behalf of the appellant in FAO No. 328 of 1997 that the compensatory costs of Rs. It has been further argued on behalf of the appellant in FAO No. 328 of 1997 that the compensatory costs of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Commissioner, Amritsar, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is beyond jurisdiction as no such power is vested with the Commissioner, Amritsar to impose compensatory costs which can be recovered from the appellant personally. It was further argued that in any case, the appellant was not personally responsible for any delay caused in payment of compensation to the claimants and no personal mala fides are attributed to him and thus, the impugned order be set aside. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals have submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in these appeals for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether Ramesh Kumar deceased employee had died during the course of employment keeping in view the fact that he died after duty hours and outside the area of employment? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner could have imposed compensatory costs upon the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway Mechanical Workshops, Amritsar and such order was without jurisdiction? 10. However, on the other hand, counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the impugned order is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Commissioner has rightly granted compensation to the claimants holding that the death has occurred during the course of employment. 11. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others, AIR 1958 SC 881 , which reads thus: As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment, being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. There may be reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, in view of the aforesaid principles of law, if we examine the facts of this case, there is no dispute that the death has occurred immediately after the duty hours were over and the deceased employee was coming out of the cycle shed and he died due to the stampede in front of the Railways Workshop gate and thus, keeping in view the notional extension theory as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, there is no escape from the conclusion that death of the deceased employee occurred during the course of his employment with the respondent. 13. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings of the Commissioner, Amritsar, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, whereby the compensation has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Ramesh Kumar during the course of employment of the respondents. 14. However, at this stage, it may be noticed that Section 26 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, empowers the Commissioner to impose costs at his discretion. Therefore, the argument raised on behalf of the appellants that imposing of compensatory costs in the instant case of appellant is beyond jurisdiction cannot be sustained. However, it is a matter of fact that no mala fides are attributed to the aforesaid appellant in FAO No. 328 of 1997 and thus, has refused the compensation to the claimants only in discharge of his official functions and in view thereof, this Court finds that imposing of compensatory costs of Rs. 20,000/- on the aforesaid appellant personally was not warranted. 15. In view thereof, the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and costs of Rs. 20,000/- on the aforesaid appellant personally was not warranted. 15. In view thereof, the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and costs of Rs. 20,008/- so imposed upon the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway Mechanical Workshops, Amritsar, are deleted and thus, the impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent. 16. Resultantly, FAO No. 18 of 1997 is dismissed being without any merit and FAO No. 328 of 1997 is allowed. 17. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that there is a delay of 51 days in filing FAO No. 328 of 1997. Keeping in view the fact that the appeal pertains to the year 1997 and the same is being decided on merits, delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 20. The application is disposed of.