Case Note & Summary
The appellants, widow and children of the deceased truck driver, filed a claim under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased who suffered a massive heart attack on 27/05/2015 while working as a driver for respondent No.1. The Commissioner under the Act rejected the application on 23/01/2018, primarily on the ground that the appellant No.1's evidence that her husband died due to extremely strenuous work conditions was not pleaded in the application and there was lack of material on record. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the Commissioner was legally correct in observing that such plea had not been pleaded. The appellants' counsel argued that the Commissioner took a hyper-technical view and that the application did indicate the cause of uneasiness. The High Court examined the application and found that paragraph 1 of the application did indicate that the deceased suffered uneasiness due to strenuous work. The Court held that the Commissioner ought to have considered the matter liberally and not dismissed the claim on a hyper-technical ground. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, directing the parties to appear on 23/09/2019. The appeal was allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Headnote
A) Employee's Compensation - Pleadings - Liberal Construction - Section 22 of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that the plea of strenuous work causing heart attack was not pleaded. The High Court held that the application did indicate the cause of uneasiness and that a hyper-technical view should not be taken. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner was legally correct in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the plea of strenuous work conditions causing heart attack was not pleaded, despite the application indicating the cause of uneasiness.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23/01/2018 passed by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Amravati is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 23/09/2019.
Law Points
- Liberal construction of pleadings
- Employee's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Heart attack as personal injury arising out of employment
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 161
First Appeal No.5 of 2019
Mr. P.C. Marpakwar for appellants, Mr. A.J. Gilda for respondent No.1
Smt. Seematai Wd/o Balu Saut, Shubham S/o Balu Saut, Ku. Shivani D/o Balu Saut
Shreenath Cargo Company, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against rejection of compensation claim under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought compensation for death of husband/father due to heart attack while working as truck driver
Filing Reason
Commissioner rejected claim on ground that plea of strenuous work causing heart attack was not pleaded
Previous Decisions
Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Amravati rejected application on 23/01/2018
Issues
Whether the Commissioner was legally correct in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the plea of strenuous work conditions causing heart attack was not pleaded, despite the application indicating the cause of uneasiness.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel submitted that the Commissioner took a hyper-technical view and that the application did indicate the cause of uneasiness due to strenuous work.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner ought to have considered the application liberally and not dismissed the claim on a hyper-technical ground regarding pleadings, as the application did indicate the cause of uneasiness.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants herein are the widow and children of the deceased, who was working as a truck driver with respondent No.1 company.
The Commissioner under the said Act / Labour Court, Amravati, rejected the application preferred by the appellants, primarily on the ground that the evidence given by the appellant No.1, to the effect that her husband suffered fatal heart attack due to extremely strenuous work conditions was not even pleaded in the application.
In the light of the pleadings in paragraph 1 of the application for grant of compensation indicating the cause of uneasiness of the victim, whether the learned Commissioner was legally correct in observing that such plea had not been pleaded in the claim petition warranting dismissal of the petition?
The Court below had taken a very technical view in the matter and that the aforesaid Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, the Commissioner ought to have considered the matter liberally.
Procedural History
Appellants filed application under Section 22 of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 before Commissioner, Labour Court, Amravati. Commissioner rejected application on 23/01/2018. Appellants filed First Appeal No.5 of 2019 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Notice for final disposal issued on 22/01/2019. Appeal heard and decided on 26/08/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Employee's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 22
