Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (the employer) against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sangli, dated 18th November 1998, which allowed the application of Respondent No.1, the widow of the deceased workman Chandrakant Santu Katkar. The workman was employed at a daily wage of Rs.31/- and was supervised by a Civil Engineer. On 4th November 1992, his duty hours were 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, he sustained an electric shock at 7:30 p.m. while working at a bungalow where Respondent No.4 resided. The workman died as a result of the injuries. Respondent No.1 initially sought compensation from the employer, which was denied, leading her to file an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation from both the employer and Respondent No.4. The Commissioner awarded Rs.80,352/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of deposit. The employer appealed, contending that the accident did not occur during the course of employment as it happened after duty hours. The High Court, per Justice Smt. Nishita Mhatre, held that the Commissioner's finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment is a finding of fact. Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. The court found no such question and dismissed the appeal, upholding the compensation award.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Arising out of and in the course of employment - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The workman sustained an electric shock at 7:30 p.m. while working at a bungalow, after his scheduled duty hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. - The Commissioner found that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The High Court held that the Commissioner's finding of fact is final and cannot be interfered with in appeal under Section 30 unless there is a substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 2-4) B) Workmen's Compensation - Appeal - Substantial question of law - Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The employer appealed against the award of compensation, arguing that the accident did not occur during duty hours. The High Court held that the Commissioner's findings on factual issues are final and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in holding that the death of the workman due to electric shock at 7:30 p.m. arose out of and in the course of employment, when his duty hours were 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding Rs.80,352/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of deposit.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- Section 30
- arising out of and in the course of employment
- finality of findings of fact
- substantial question of law
