Case Note & Summary
The United India Insurance Company Limited appealed against the judgment dated 23/10/1990 in Workmen Compensation Case No. 14 of 1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Khamgaon, which allowed the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 (Shrikrishna Sadashiv Lad) and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 36,479.89 as compensation. The appellant contended that respondent No.1 was not a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and thus not entitled to compensation. The facts are that respondent No.1 was employed by respondent No.2 (M/s. K.G.B. Industries) as a daily-wage labourer in their factory. On 17/6/1987, while cleaning a machine, his right hand was pulled into the machine, resulting in amputation of four fingers and the terminal phalanx of the thumb. He claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000 for loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner held that respondent No.1 proved his injuries and was entitled to compensation. The legal issue was whether respondent No.1 was a 'workman' under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. The appellant argued that the claimant failed to prove his monthly wages were below the prescribed limit. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the claimant's testimony was not corroborated by any documentary evidence such as wage slips or employment records. The employer did not admit the wage amount. The court held that the burden of proof was on the claimant to establish his workman status, which he failed to discharge. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and dismissed the claim petition.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Definition of Workman - Section 2(1)(n) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimant must prove that he is a 'workman' as defined under the Act, i.e., a person employed in any of the specified capacities and whose monthly wages do not exceed the prescribed limit. The court held that the claimant failed to prove his monthly wages were below the threshold, and thus he was not a workman entitled to compensation. (Paras 1-9) B) Workmen's Compensation - Burden of Proof - Section 2(1)(n) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The burden lies on the claimant to establish that he falls within the definition of 'workman'. Mere assertion of daily wages without corroborative evidence is insufficient. The court found that the claimant's evidence was not credible and the employer did not admit the wage amount. (Paras 4-8) C) Workmen's Compensation - Monthly Wage Calculation - Section 2(1)(n) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - For determining workman status, the monthly wage must be calculated as per the Act. The claimant claimed Rs. 9 per day, but no proof of employment or wage records was produced. The court held that the claimant failed to discharge the burden. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant (respondent No.1) was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and consequently entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation dated 23/10/1990 is set aside. The claim petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(1)(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Burden of proof on claimant to establish workman status
- Monthly wage threshold for workman status
