Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 154 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Geeta Joshi

2022-06-23

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the Appellants/State under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, putting a challenge to the impugned award as it has been rendered by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in W.C.A. Case No. 30 of 2007, Smt. Geeta Joshi vs. Divisional Forest Officer (West) Almora and Another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent widow herein, had filed a workmen’s compensation proceedings, which was numbered as W.C.A. Case No. 30 of 2007, for the grant of an appropriate compensation, as a consequence of the death of her husband, who was shot down at the time when he was performing his duties with the forest department, as a forest guard on 07.02.1994. 3. It is submitted that when he was patrolling in the assigned the forest area in the night of 07.02.1994, some unknown persons had fired at him due to which he got gunshot injured and later met with the sad demise on 13.02.1994. His body was shown to have been recovered from Amigad forest block No. 14, adjoining to the road to the said block. 4. It is contended by the claimant that in relation to the aforesaid incident, which had chanced on 07.02.1994 and after the recovery of the body of the deceased husband late Mr. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, an FIR was also got registered by the Deputy Forest Range Officer on 13.02.1994, with Patti Patwari, Dunagiri. As such, it was contended by the claimant that employer/appellant, had the information and knowledge about the incident dated 07.02.1994 and consequential death of her late husband and they cannot, under any circumstances deny that there was no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the present appellant because on the date of the incident, when he was shot dead, he was discharging his official services with the forest department as a forest guard in the region of the forest where he was deployed to work as forest guard. 5. The second argument, which has been raised by the appellants’ counsel is that the claim petition itself has been instituted at a very highly belated stage and there is delay of 12 years, in filing the proceedings, and as such the claim petition ought to have been rejected by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 6. 5. The second argument, which has been raised by the appellants’ counsel is that the claim petition itself has been instituted at a very highly belated stage and there is delay of 12 years, in filing the proceedings, and as such the claim petition ought to have been rejected by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 6. The parties to the proceedings before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, were heard and they had submitted their written arguments on 11.02.2007 and consequently, the employer in his statement which has been recorded in Para 1 amd 2 in the written statement had submitted before the Court they had admitted the fact of incident, which had chanced on 07.02.1994 and they have further admitted the fact that late husband of the claimant, was patrolling the forest area and at the relevant time was posted as forest guard, but, however, a slight clarification was attempted to made by the appellants in the written statement, that as far as posting of the late husband of the claimant is concerned, at the place where the incident had chanced, was slightly disputed. The factum of recovery of the dead body of late husband of the claimant from the place adjoining the forest block No. 14 was admitted. 7. It was further admitted by the appellants that the FIR was also got registered in relation to the said incident. Another controversy which was sought to be pressed into, in the proceedings before the Court below, was with regards to the age of the deceased. However, after registering of the case and as per the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook, the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, while determining the wages payable and in consonance to the age pertaining to the Financial Year 1995-96, it was determined by a logic that by way of an Office Memorandum No. B-3/5022/10/95 dated 03.01.1995, late Mr. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, the claimant who was the wife of the deceased employee was paid with the consolidated emolument by way of a compensation under the policy, as it was made applicable by the then State of Uttar Pradesh, to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- by way of bank draft drawn from the Almora Bank. 8. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, the claimant who was the wife of the deceased employee was paid with the consolidated emolument by way of a compensation under the policy, as it was made applicable by the then State of Uttar Pradesh, to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- by way of bank draft drawn from the Almora Bank. 8. This Court is of the view that the very admitted aspect that a consolidated amount of compensation was paid to the widow of the deceased, under the then prevalent policy itself admittedly shows that the deceased was working with the respondent, as a forest guard and their existed relationship of master and servant between them. 9. It was further admitted, that in view of the aforesaid circumstances since the respondent department being a department of the State, the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, which was said to be not applicable in the cases, where the relationship of master and servant was denied was answered by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner against the appellant and a finding has been recorded, that the deceased employee was a government employee and after his death the widow would be entitled for the payment of compensation and this fact further stands fortified from their own case of the appellant, that after the death of late Mr. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, his son was granted a compassionate appointment. Grant of compassionate appointment once again would be an additional fact which leads to a logical inference, that the compassionate appointment would have only been extended to the dependents of an employee who had died during service and not otherwise and had been a regular member of service. 10. In that eventuality, it is no more a question which is left to be argued by the appellant, that there didn’t existed relation of master-servant between the appellant and the deceased on the date of incident of 07.02.1994. In the written statement which was filed by the claimant, she had admitted the fact that the harness appointment was provided to the son of the deceased, but no amount was paid to the widow of the deceased, by way of compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and has rather reiterated the claim, as it was referred to in the claim proceedings which were raised by the widow before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 11. The evidence was adduced before the Court below. 11. The evidence was adduced before the Court below. The widow of late Mr. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, appeared in the witness box and had recorded her statement to the effect that her late husband was working with the respondent as a forest guard on a regular basis and was posted at Someshwar and from there he was posted for duty at an unknown place, where the incident had chanced, where he was shot down by some unknown persons. 12. She further submitted that on the date of the incident, her husband was of 40 years of age and was drawing a wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month. In that eventuality, she contended that she would be entitled for the grant of compensation and in the statement which was thus recorded, she claimed that she would be entitled for the losses, which has accrued to the family due to the loss of the sole breadwinner of the family. 13. She pleaded in her statement which was recorded before the Court below, that in order to fortify the incident of 07.02.1994, in fact, the department did conducted a departmental proceeding, by sending a team of investigators to collect the necessary information pertaining to the incident dated 07.02.1994, and as per the letter No. B-3UO602 dated 21.12.1995, which was taken as to be the basis, to establish the fact of commission of the incident dated 07.02.1994, which was taken as to be the foundation for the remittance of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,500/- it was or would have been no more in controversy that the late husband of the widow respondent was not working as the forest guard with the respondent department on a regular basis. 14. After appreciation of the evidences including the compensation which was already awarded to the widow of the deceased employee, the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, after considering the statement of the Divisional Forest Officer Almora, and the Forest Conservator of Uttari Kumaun, Nainital, the learned Workmen Commissioner has rightly determined the compensation which was made payable on the basis of the salary which was determined as a dependency of Rs. 2348/- and the Court based on it has ultimately computed the compensation payable to the tune of Rs. 2,16,213/- with an interest payable on it @ 12% per annum. 15. 2348/- and the Court based on it has ultimately computed the compensation payable to the tune of Rs. 2,16,213/- with an interest payable on it @ 12% per annum. 15. In view of the aforesaid finding, and particularly the ground which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, to deny the payment of compensation on the ground that the late husband of the respondent claimant was not the employee of the department, is a fact which was otherwise established against the appellant based on appreciation of evidence, and their own pleaded case, in the proceedings and the findings which has been recorded by the Court below. 16. So far as the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, pertaining to the delayed claim, raised by the widow of the deceased employee, in fact, if the entire proceedings which were held before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is taken into consideration, apart from the fact that there being a very stray pleading which was raised by the appellant before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, they have not addressed the issue or got the finding returned by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner with regard to the impact of limitation for the purposes of determining the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. And if the entire award dated 23.11.2010, is taken into consideration, the appellant had not questioned the propriety of delayed claim, hence they are estopped to raise a question of delay at this appellate stage, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 17. This Court is further of the view that the claim which fall for consideration within the domain of a welfare legislation, the limitation would always be an aspect, which has to be liberally construed to meet the welfare objective of a legislation, and more particularly, when under the given civilian set-up of the country, where most of the masses are residing in the interior areas and are illiterate and unaware with the intricate procedural law, the limitation aspect has to be construed in their favour, even if the claim has been raised at a later stage. Filing of a claim at later stage even otherwise too it will not mitigate the aftermath of the incident and the losses which has been suffered by the family. Filing of a claim at later stage even otherwise too it will not mitigate the aftermath of the incident and the losses which has been suffered by the family. In that eventuality, non pressing of the issue of limitation before the Workmen’s Commissioner and proceeding to address the Court on its own merit of the claim, would rather disentitle the appellant to raise a question of limitation so far as the payment of compensation is concerned. 18. In that eventuality, after having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, and having gone through the impugned award, as well as the LCRs, which were placed before this Court, and referred to during the course of arguments, I do not think that the impugned award of 23.10.2010 suffers from any apparent error of law or fact, which is required to be ventured into by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence, the Appeal from Order lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. After culmination of the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that in the proceedings which were held before the Workmen’s Commissioner and a separate issue was formulated qua the question of limitation, which was decided in favour of the claimant, but the decision taken thereof of the said issue was not made as a subject matter of challenge before this Appellate Court in this Appeal from Order because the decision taken on an issue of limitation would stand merged in the final decision taken by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, but has not been challenged with the appeal. 20. Hence, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed.