Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Lebu Mahato v. Bala Kant Mishra

2019-02-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.02.2015, passed by learned Labour Court, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 119 of 2011. 3. The case of the applicant before the Court below was that the Applicant/Appellant, Lebu Mahato was a contract worker engaged by the Contractor, Balakant Mishra (opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1). He was working at Munidih Project, one of the Coal Unit of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for short “M/s. BCCL”), opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2. On 14.09.1992, the applicant was on duty and working under the Mine when he met with an accident, due to which personal injuries were caused to him resulting in amputation of his right leg. At the time of accident, he was aged about 22 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 8000/-. After such incident, the applicant filed W.C. Case No. 119 of 2011 before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad for payment of compensation. On receipt of notice, opposite parties appeared before the Court and filed their respective written statements. Thereafter, evidences were led and the parties were heard. It was the specific case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that inflicted personal injuries to employee/applicant was due to accident occurred on 14.09.1992, while he was on duty and as such, the accident took place arising out of and in the course of his employment. Due to the said injuries, right leg was amputated and physical handicapped certificate (Ext. A-2) was issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad, which reveals 70% disablement of the appellant. Though the accident and injuries were admitted by the opposite parties and the applicant/ claimant was running from pillar to post to get compensation but it was only on assurance, the case was dragged for a decade and lastly, not a single farthing was paid to the applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1-Contractor, opposed the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay and it was argued that accident took place on 14.09.1992 and after 16 years of the occurrence, the claim case has been preferred in the Court below. It is a case of inordinate delay without sufficient cause explained. The applicant never approached before opposite party No. 1 for payment of compensation amount. It is a case of inordinate delay without sufficient cause explained. The applicant never approached before opposite party No. 1 for payment of compensation amount. Further neither any chit of paper has been brought on record to show that the applicant was ever permitted to work under BCCL Management nor any medical prescription or medical report or any clinical report or bill and voucher of medicines, etc. have been filed by the applicant. Even, alleged handicapped certificate was issued on 17.01.2002 i.e. after 10 years of the accident. No evidence had been brought on record regarding disability certificate and as such, the applicant/claimant entitled for any compensation. The opposite party No. 2, Management was in full agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and argues that it is a case of inordinate delay and as such, the applicant cannot be permitted to raise the said plea after a long delay. The claim case has been filed after 16 years, which itself is a ground for rejecting the claim for payment of compensation other than on merits. After hearing the parties, going through the evidence and documents brought on record, the learned Court below formulated the following three issues for proper adjudication of the case:- (i) Whether disability caused to the applicant was due to injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? (ii) Whether the instant claim case is barred by period of limitation and for lack of service of notice as prescribed under Section 10 of the Act. (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation under the Act? If yes, what will be the reasonable amount of compensation and who among the OP’s is liable to pay? 4. The learned Court below after careful consideration of the pleadings and evidences, decided the issues holding therein that the claim case is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, it is dismissed on this score itself and not fit to be allowed, as no plausible explanation has been given by the applicant/claimant. On merits, while deciding issue No. 1 it was held that the applicant was working as a contractor’s man and he met with an accident on 14.09.1992, while he was on duty. On merits, while deciding issue No. 1 it was held that the applicant was working as a contractor’s man and he met with an accident on 14.09.1992, while he was on duty. Regarding the injury and the accident, it was inferred that the applicant failed to prove the disability caused to the applicant was due to injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. After deciding all the issues, the learned Court below clearly held that the applicant is not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. 5. The correctness of the order passed by the learned Court below has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that Section 10(1)(a) & (b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, has not been correctly interpreted by the learned Court below. 6. Mrs. Mahua Palit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argues that though the claim case was filed after 16 years but the case of the appellant cannot be thrown away merely on technical grounds. It was further contended that on perusal of Section 10(1)(a) & (b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, it transpires that no notice is required for the accident took place in the working premises and during the course of duty but the same was neither considered nor appreciated by the learned Court below and as such, the findings of the learned Court below is totally perverse and against the statutory provisions of law. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the Management of BCCL, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel argues that everything has been taken into consideration and the evidences and pleadings and arguments advanced by the parties were considered and then order was passed and as such, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below and the applicant is not entitled for any compensation. Ms. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel argues that everything has been taken into consideration and the evidences and pleadings and arguments advanced by the parties were considered and then order was passed and as such, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below and the applicant is not entitled for any compensation. Ms. Pooja draws the attention of the Court towards para-6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the BCCL Management and submits that the claim of the applicant that he was employed under the BCCL is not sustainable in the eyes of law, rather, after consideration, the learned Court below has rightly come-out with the findings that the claimant was the employee of the Contractor and not of the BCCL. It was also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the BCCL Management that the claimant has admitted that he had instituted this case because his Tobacco shop was removed by the district Administration on the ground of encroachment and aggrieved by the same, he filed the case for compensation. 8. Be that as it may, having heard the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order, on the following grounds:- (i) Under the Limitation Act, provision is very clear regarding filing of the claim case, which is of two years and admittedly, the Claimant has approached the Court below by filing the claim case after 16 years. No plausible explanation has been given for condonation of delay. The reason which has been assigned is not at all tenable in the eyes of law and as such, this Court is also in agreement with the findings of the learned Court below on the point of limitation and rightly the case has been rejected. (ii) On the merits, it has been held that the claimant was not an employee of the BCCL Management, rather, he was the employee of the Contractor and as such, in no way, BCCL Management can be held liable for any compensation and rightly the said issue was decided in favour of the BCCL Management and against the concerned claimant, who had knocked the door of the Court below for compensation. (iii) Even on the point of disability and the accident, no evidences were led and neither a chit of paper was produced and even the disability certificate was produced after 10 years of accident and in that view of the matter, rightly it was held that the evidence of the appellant to connect the disability certificate with the alleged accident which took place 10 years back is not tenable and cannot be accepted. 9. Further, the admission of the Claimant/Appellant that he had preferred the claim case as because his Tobacco shop was removed by the District Administration in the encroachment drive which shows that the claim case is frivolous and rightly it was dismissed, which was never been disputed in the Court below and also in the appeal. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. No order as to cost. 12. As a sequel to the disposal of the instant appeal, pending I.A. if any, also stand disposed of. 13. L.C.R. be sent back to the Court concerned.