Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 426 (CHH)

Rammkirtan Sahu v. Kuldeepak Kesharwani

2014-11-27

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order dated 14.06.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 23/WCA/COC-1-B/02 (N.F) claim. By way of the said impugned order the learned Commissioner has rejected the claim of the claimant holding it to be not maintainable. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal is that the appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Bilaspur claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to the claimant, he was engaged by the respondents for construction of their house and in the course of the construction, the appellant/claimant on 03.02.2001 met with an accident on account of which he received injuries on his body. In the course of treatment, left hand of the appellant had to be amputated and that the appellant also received injuries on his right leg for which also surgery was required. Based upon the said accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant, he sought for compensation from the respondents. According to the claimant, since he was engaged by the respondents for the construction of their house, for all practical purposes the respondents were his employer and therefore the claim application was filed against the respondents for payment of compensation as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Upon receipt of notice, the respondents entered appearance before the Court below and initially raised a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the case itself. According to the counsel for the respondents, the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act in as much as admittedly the claimant was working as a labour engaged by the respondents for the construction of the house jointly belonging to the respondents. 3. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to frame the issue and without recording the evidence on either parties, the Court below went on to decide the preliminary issue and vide impugned award dated 14.06.2002 rejected the claim application of the claimant on the ground that the claimant would not fall within the definition of "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to frame the issue and without recording the evidence on either parties, the Court below went on to decide the preliminary issue and vide impugned award dated 14.06.2002 rejected the claim application of the claimant on the ground that the claimant would not fall within the definition of "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to the Labour Court, the claimant was not employed for the purpose of the respondents' trade or business and that his employment was of casual nature and therefore he does not fall within the ambit of workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 4. It is this judgment which is under challenge by way of the instant (appeal. 5. According to the counsel for the appellant, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation has committed grave error of law in not appreciating the procedure prescribed under the Act and also not fulfilling and discharging the true duties of a Commissioner. The Commissioner with a predetermined motion of rejecting the claim of the claimant proceeded to decide the preliminary objection straightway and rejected the claim application of the claimant. 6. Counsel for the appellant took the Court through the proceedings that were drawn before the Labour Court and from the proceedings it is reflected that the respondents on receipt of notice entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the case and the learned Commissioner without appreciating the total facts and circumstances of the case proceeded to decide the preliminary issue first only on the basis of oral arguments made by either side. According to the counsel for the appellant, the learned Commissioner after the preliminary issue was framed ought to have fixed the matter for the evidence of the parties and should have asked the respondent employer to prove the contention that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the counsel for the appellant, since the preliminary objection has been raised by the employer/respondents, the burden to prove the issue was of the employer and that without making the employer to lead evidence on the preliminary issue, the Court below went to decide the entire case itself and has rejected the same holding it to be not maintainable. Therefore, this impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside. Therefore, this impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to discharge his duty that of a Commissioner who in fact has to act as a guardian of the claimant protecting the interest of the claimant particularly while deciding the claim application. According to the counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, for some reasons learned Labour Court without asking the employers for leading evidence only on the basis of argument and preliminary objection went on decide, that the claim case is not maintainable and the claimant was not workman as is defined under Section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 7. With the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the appellant claimed for setting aside of the impugned award and also prayed for allowing the claim application of the claimant granting compensation to the present appellant. 8. The said submissions of the counsel for the appellant was opposed by the counsel for the respondents stating that a plain reading of the order passed by the Labour Court would reveal that in fact the case of the appellant was not maintainable in as much as appellant/claimant did not fall within the ambit of the term 'workman' as is defined under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the counsel for the respondents, the Commissioner reached to the conclusion on the basis of the averments made in the claim application itself wherein the claimant has admitted the fact that the accident took place while he was working as a labour in constructing the house which was being constructed by the respondents jointly and for these reasons counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant. 9. On due consideration of the facts of the case particularly taking note of the fact that it is evidently established that the impugned order was passed without recording of the evidence of any of the parties to the dispute. It is a case where the claimant had raised a claim for grant of compensation on account of the injury sustained by him while working with the respondents. It is a case where the claimant had raised a claim for grant of compensation on account of the injury sustained by him while working with the respondents. It is pertinent to note that a bare perusal of the impugned award and the record would show that there is an admission on the part of the respondents firstly with regard to the engagement of the claimant as a worker in the construction of the house jointly by the respondents. Secondly, with regard to the accident that took place resulting in grievous disabilities of permanent nature to the appellant/claimant. Thus, on the admitted position, the learned Commissioner ought to have proceeded further to decide the case on its merits whether the appellant in fact was entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or not. The said objection raised by the respondents could have been decided only after completion of the pleadings and recording of the evidences of either side. The Commissioner failed to take note of the fact that since the objection has been raised by the respondents in respect of the maintainability of the claim application, the respondents should have been fastened with the liability of proving their case on the objection of maintainability. 10. For all practical purposes, for adjudication of the issue of maintainability, the commissioner ought to have fixed the case for evidence of the parties in support of their respective contentions wherein the appellant also would have got the advantage of leading the evidence in support of his claim including the question of maintainability of the claim application. 11. The Commissioner in the instant case appears to have acted in a hasty manner while deciding the case in as much as the Labour Court should have looked into the case with a broader perspective and should have directed the parties to lead evidence so as to ascertain whether the appellant/claimant would fall within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner should have directed the parties to adduce evidence to ascertain whether the workman i.e. the appellant/claimant was employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner should have directed the parties to adduce evidence to ascertain whether the workman i.e. the appellant/claimant was employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. If we peruse Schedule 2 of the Act, it would reveal that Clause VIII of the said Schedule @ deals with the employment relating to the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of a building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one story in height above the ground or 12' or more from the ground level to the apex of the room and if the said clause had been established by; the claimant and the issue had been decided in the affirmative, the appellant would have fallen within the ambit of workman under the Act of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and then the claim application would have been maintainable. This aspect has been totally ignored or the Commissioner has failed to appreciate this issue. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ought to have considered the fact that the Act i.e. Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is a social security legislation and its object is primarily to make employer liable to the workmen for the loss caused by the injury or death while engaged in his employment. The labour Court has committed a grave error of law in not appreciating the fact that the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not to be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workmen from getting compensation on the ground of an accidental injury. The Labour Court in the instant case does not seem to be aware of the basic responsibilities while deciding a matter under Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award passed by the Commissioner/Labour Court in case No. 23/WCA/COC-l-B/02 (N.F.) dated 14.06.2002 is not sustainable and deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. However, the case is further remitted back to the Labour Court for consideration of the entire case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to either side to lead evidence in support of their respective claim and defence.