IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.892/2017 (WC) BETWEEN:
1. The Range Forest Officer, Aldur Range, Aldur.
2. The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chikkamagaluru Division, Chikkamagaluru.
3. The Principal Secretary, Forest and Biology, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Vidhana Veedi, Bengaluru.
(By Smt. Rashmi Patel, HCGP) AND:
1. Smt.Vijaya, Aged 33 years, W/o.Kalleshappa.
2. Kum.Roopa, Aged 18 years, D/o. late Kalleshappa.
… Appellants Both are R/at Jodilingadahalli Village, S. Bidre Post, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.
.... Respondents (By Sri T. Puttaswamy, Advocate for R1 and R2) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated 27.06.2016, passed in ECA No.20/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.2,07,850/- with interest at 12% p.a. after expiry of 30 days of the incident till the date of payment.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appellants have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 27.06.2016 made in ECA No.20/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,07,850/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after expiry of one month of the accident till the date of payment.
2. The claimants who are the wife and daughter of the deceased Kalleshappa filed the claim petition under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) claiming compensation on account of death of Sri Kalleshappa on 11.01.2004 arising out of and during the course of his employment under the present appellants.
3. It is the case of the claimants that the husband and father of the claimants was working as a daily wage worker since 1984 in Aldur Range Forest Department. On 11.01.2004, some unknown persons brutally assaulted him when he was on duty, immediately he was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and then he was shifted to Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru, where he died on 12.01.2004. Hence, the death of the deceased Kalleshappa was occurred during the course of his employment under respondent No.1/present appellant No.1. The deceased was aged about 34 years as on the date of the incident and he was getting a sum of Rs.150/- per day as wages. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants sought to allow the claim petition.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondents/ appellants appeared through their counsel and filed their objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that on 11.01.2004 deceased Kalleshapa did not attend to his duties. Hence, the alleged incident was not occurred during the course of the employment and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, therefore, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal/Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation based on the aforesaid pleadings has framed the following issues;
1) “ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À°è PÁ«ÄðPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, DvÀ ¢:12.01.2004 gÀAzÀÄ JA¥ÁèAiÀiïªÉÄAmï EAdÄj¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2) vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ CªÀ®A©vÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3) ªÀÄÈvÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À JµÉÖAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥ÀrzÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?
5) ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨ÁzÀså¸ÀÜgÀÄ?
6) wÃ¥ÀÄð?”
6. In order to establish the case of the claimants, the claimant No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.
The respondents/appellants examined one witness as R.W.1, but did not choose to mark any documents.
7. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record, proceeded to record the finding that the deceased was workman under appellant No.1 and he died due to the injuries sustained and the claimants are the dependants of the deceased and held that the claimants proved the age of the deceased and also held that the deceased was died arising and during the course of his employment under the respondents/present appellants. Therefore, the claimants are entitle for the compensation as sought for. Accordingly, the Tribunal/Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,850/- as compensation to the wife of the deceased with 12% interest per annum after expiry of one month of the incident. Hence, the present Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the State/appellants seeking modification of the impugned judgment and award. The respondents/ claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to lis.
9. Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned Government pleader has contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation /Tribunal, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,07,850/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum is erroneous and contrary to material on record. She further contended that the deceased had not worked on the date of the incident and despite the fact that there being no signature of the deceased in the attendance register for having worked on the said day, question of awarding compensation would not arise. She would further contend that in view of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, the basic ingredient in order to attract Section 3(1) of the Act, the personal injury caused to an employee by an accident shall be arising out of and in the course of his employment, then, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding the compensation under the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, she sought to allow the present Miscellaneous First Appeal.
10. Per contra Sri T.Puttaswamy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was appointed by the present appellants on daily wages basis. As per Ex.P.6- Copy of attendance register, which clearly indicates that the deceased was worked for 30-31 days in every month without taking any leave. As on the date of the incident, the deceased was assaulted on 11.01.2004 and subsequently died on 12.01.2001 in the Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru. The incident has occurred arising out of and during the course of the employment, therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimants is maintainable and the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation. He further contended that it is not in dispute that the jurisdiction police have registered a criminal case against the persons who assaulted the deceased, same is evident from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Ex.P.6- copy of attendance register clearly depicts that as on the date of the incident, the deceased was working as a worker under respondent No.1/appellant No.1. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present Miscellaneous First Appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased Kalleshappa was working as a daily wages worker under the present appellant No.1. It is also not in dispute that on 11.1.2004, some unknown persons brutally assaulted the deceased when he was on duty, immediately he was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru, later, he was shifted to Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru, where, he succumbed to the injuries on 12.01.2004. Though a specific contention has been taken by the learned counsel for the State/appellants that the deceased was not worked on 11.01.2004, the material documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 clearly indicates that as on the date of the incident, deceased was on duty as rightly held by the Tribunal. Ex.P.6 also clearly depicts that the deceased had worked for 30-31 days in every month without getting any leave. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was very much on duty as on the date of the incident.
12. It is well settled that, the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of security and welfare legislation. Its dominant purpose is to protect the workman and therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workman from compensation which the Parliament thought they ought to have. The intention of the Legislature was to make the employer and insurer of the workman responsible against the loss caused by the injuries or death, which ought to have happened, while the workman was engaged in his work.
13. A careful reading of the provision of Section 3 of the Act, the expression “arising out of employment” means, there must be casual relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident has occurred on account of the risk which is an incident of employment, it has to be held that the accident has arisen out of the employment. Admittedly in the present case, on 11.01.2004 when deceased Kalleshappa was on duty, he was brutally assaulted by some unknown persons. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police had registered a case against that unknown persons. It clearly indicates that the incident has arisen and during the course of the employment. Therefore, the claimants who are the wife and the daughter of the deceased cannot deprived the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal/Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation considering the entire oral and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that the deceased Kalleshappa was died arising out of and during the course of the employment and the claimants are the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased are entitled for the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.2,292/- after deducting 50% as contemplated under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,07,850/-. Same is in accordance with law.
14. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the deceased was a daily wages worker, if it is so, then, the appointment should be based on the Regular Appointment Rules. Ex.P.6 produced by the claimants clearly indicates that the deceased had worked for 30-31 days in every month. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the State/appellants cannot be believed. On that ground also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. The appellants have not made out any ground to admit the Miscellaneous First Appeal and no substantial question of law is involved in the present Miscellaneous First Appeal.
16. It is also relevant to state at this stage that in an identical circumstance, this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forest and Another Vs Smt.Sharadabai in MFA No.907/2007, dismissed the appeal filed by the State. The said order passed by this Court has reached finality. The appellants shall not discriminate the workers, when this Court has already granted compensation to the claimants in an identical circumstance. The appellants ought not to have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal. On that ground also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-