Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by M/s Denklay Marine Services Ltd. and M/s Orinoco Marine Consultancy India Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai (6th Labour Court) under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent, Mrs. Benedicta A. Fernandes (original applicant), is the widow of Anthony Peter Fernandes, who was employed as a Petty Officer or Chief Cook on the vessel M.T. Shannon on a contractual basis from 3.3.1998 to 5.12.1998. In August 1998, the deep freezer malfunctioned, and the Captain ordered him to shift meat and fish to the vegetable room. On 12.9.1998, while shifting 15 boxes weighing about 50 kgs each without assistance, he sustained acute back pain and shoulder injury. He was given first aid but continued working. After returning from leave, he was diagnosed with a prolapsed disc and underwent surgery. The Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,528/-. The appellants challenged the award on the grounds that the injury did not arise out of employment, the compensation was excessive, and the NMB agreement was not applicable. The court framed three substantial questions of law: (1) whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation though the case is not covered under Section 3 of the Act and holding 100% disability; (2) whether the compensation of Rs.3,75,528/- is just and legal in view of the 2009 amendment to Section 4; (3) whether the respondent is entitled to claim compensation as per the NMB agreement under the Act. The court answered all three questions in the negative, holding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the shifting of food boxes was not part of the cook's duties and the respondent failed to prove the accident. The appeal was allowed, and the cross-objection was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Injury Arising Out of Employment - Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - The injury must be caused by an accident which arises out of and in the course of employment. The court held that the respondent failed to prove that the injury was due to an accident arising out of employment, as the shifting of food boxes was not part of his duties as a cook and he did not report the injury immediately. (Paras 1-3) B) Workmen's Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Section 4 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - The court held that the compensation of Rs.3,75,528/- was not just and legal in view of the amendment of 2009, as the injury did not fall under Section 3. (Paras 1-2) C) Workmen's Compensation - NMB Agreement - The court held that the respondent is not entitled to claim compensation as per the terms and conditions of the NMB agreement under the Act, as the Act is a self-contained code. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the injury suffered by the respondent while shifting food boxes on a vessel arose out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the compensation awarded was just and legal.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai is set aside. The cross-objection is dismissed.
Law Points
- Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment
- Burden of proof on claimant
- Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 4 of Employees' Compensation Act
- NMB agreement not relevant under the Act
