Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, filed by Chandrakant Toshniwal, the owner of agricultural land, against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Latur, which awarded compensation to the respondents (widow and children of deceased Prabhu Jadhavar). The deceased was employed as a 'Salgadi' (yearly labourer) to look after agricultural operations. On the day of the incident, the deceased and another labourer, Rambhau, were cutting grass in the field. The deceased came into contact with a live electric wire and died due to electrocution. The respondents claimed that the death occurred during the course of employment. The appellant contended that the deceased was cutting grass for his personal use, not for the employer's work, and thus the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of Rambhau, who stated that they were cutting grass for their own cattle. The court held that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the workman was engaged in personal work. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and dismissing the claim for compensation.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - 'Arising out of and in the course of employment' - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Death due to electrocution while cutting grass for personal use - The court held that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the workman was engaged in personal work, not in the employer's agricultural operations. The employer is not liable for compensation. (Paras 1-10) B) Workmen's Compensation - Burden of Proof - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The burden lies on the claimants to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. In this case, the claimants failed to discharge the burden as the evidence showed the workman was cutting grass for personal use. (Paras 5-8) C) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 2(1)(n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The deceased was a 'Salgadi' (yearly labourer) and thus a workman under the Act. However, the relationship alone does not entitle compensation unless the accident arises out of and in the course of employment. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the workman due to electrocution while cutting grass for personal use, during the course of his employment as a 'Salgadi' (yearly labourer), can be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the employer is liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09-08-2016 passed by the Ex-officio Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Latur, in WCA No. 42 of 2013 is set aside. The claim for compensation filed by the respondents is dismissed.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30
- Section 2(1)(n)
- Section 3
- 'arising out of and in the course of employment'
- burden of proof
- employer-employee relationship
- agricultural labourer
- Salgadi
- electrocution
- personal work
- not in course of employment
