Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 567 (UTT)

LEELA DEVI v. HIND SECURITY COMPANY

2017-10-26

LOK PAL SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has rejected the claim petition bearing No. W.C.A No. 24 of 2005 filed by the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased- Narayan Dutt Pandey, who was the resident of Sanjaynagar-I, Bindukhata, Lalkuwa, District Nainital, working in factory of respondent No.2 as security guard on the services provided by M/s Hind Security Company i.e. respondent No.1. On 01.01.2005 the dead body of late Narayan Dutt Pandey found at factory gate of his employer M/s Mohit Petro Chemical Ltd. Nageena Raod Bijnore. 3. Though, the dead body of deceased- Narayan Dutt Pandey was found at the factory gate of respondent no. 2 and who died in unnatural death, the respondents did not lodge a FIR at the nearby Police Station in regard to the unnatural death of late Narayan Dutt Pandey, rather they took the dead body to the residence of complaint. Considering the unnatural death of Narayan Dutt Pandey his post mortem was conducted at Government Hospital Haldwani, the cause of death assigned in the post mortem report, shock and hemorrhage, anti mortem injuries received on the body of deceased. At the time of incident the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the employment of respondent No. 2. 4. Admittedly, late Narayan Dutt Pandey was an employ of respondent No.2 and his dead body was found at the premises of respondent No.2. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to inform the Police of that area so the matter ought to be investigated by the Police to ascertain, as to whether he died during the course of employment or he was murdered. But the respondents did not lodge the FIR in the matter and decided to send the dead body to the house of deceased. Since the deceased died at the working place, therefore, the burden lies upon the respondents that he was not died during the course of employment. In the facts and circumstances of the case the burden lies upon the respondents that the deceased was not died during the course of employment, as this particular fact was in the knowledge of the respondents in what manner employ Narayan Dutt Pandey died. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case the burden lies upon the respondents that the deceased was not died during the course of employment, as this particular fact was in the knowledge of the respondents in what manner employ Narayan Dutt Pandey died. 5. On filing the claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the written statement was filed by the parties and adduced their evidences. But learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner without formulated any point determination/issues, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant by order dated 12.01.2010, on the ground that the claimants have not proved that the deceased died during the course of employment and after the perusal of the attendance register dated 01.01.2005 held that in the attendance register of his attendance is not marked. 6. That the circumstances of the death of Narayan Dutt Pandey were in the knowledge of respondents. Thus, in view of the Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act., burden lies upon them to prove that Narayan Dutt Pandey was not died during the course of employment. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the duty hours were started 2:00 to 10:00 PM, therefore, there was no occasion to enter his attendance in the attendance register on 01.01.2005 after his death and the respondents have not produced attendance register before 31.12.2004. Thus, they have deliberately withheld the attendance register of the date of incident. 8. This appeal was admitted on 26.02.2010 without formulating any substantial questions of law. After perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the view that substantial question of law No. 1 is relevant to decide the present appeal. It is proved on record by the evidence that deceased died at the gate of factory premises. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to explain in what manner and at what time, deceased died and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not produced attendance register before 31.12.2004 rather they have submitted attendance register on 01.01.2005. 9. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner did not frame the issues/point of determination to decide the lis between the parties and decided the case in a cursory manner without assigning any reasons in its judgment and award dated 12.01.2010. 10. 1 and 2 have not produced attendance register before 31.12.2004 rather they have submitted attendance register on 01.01.2005. 9. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner did not frame the issues/point of determination to decide the lis between the parties and decided the case in a cursory manner without assigning any reasons in its judgment and award dated 12.01.2010. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish reported in 2011 (8) SCC 670 has held that Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity we should not be scarified for expediency, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under: “18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based mainly on events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. 19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the Judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system." 11. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award it would reveal that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the impugned judgment and award without assigning the reasons on arriving its conclusion. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award it would reveal that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the impugned judgment and award without assigning the reasons on arriving its conclusion. More particularly without formulating any issues/ point determination to deal the controversy involved. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment and award. 12. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2010 being unreasoned and cryptic is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani District Nainital. Workmen's who shall decide the claim petition, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made above in the judgment passed by this Court, after giving full opportunity of hearing and to lead the evidence to the parties. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Haldwani, District Nainital shall made endeavor to decide the claim petition preferably within three months from the production of certified copy of this order. 13. In the facts and circumstances in the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.