Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Ramaniamma And Anr. on 7 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ1226, (2000)ILLJ129KER
Author: D. Sreedevi
Bench: D. Sreedevi
JUDGMENT Mohammed, J.
1. The sole question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the worker Sri Nagappan Nair died arising out of and in the course of employment under 2nd appellant. The appellants before us are the State of Kerala and the Assistant Director of Dairy Development, Quality Control Officer, Quality Control Unit, Trivandrum. The respondents are the legal representatives and dependents of Sri Nagappan Nair who died on March 20, 1990 due to heart attack. An application has been filed by the respondents under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- After the enquiry the Commissioner found that Nagappan Nair died in the course of employment having sustained the injuries resulting in his death. Consequently, commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs. 65,228/- with 6% interest.
2. The Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants argued before us that the finding of the Commissioner that Nagappan Nair died in the course of employment was not correct and therefore the compensation awarded by the Commissioner could not be sustained. At the outset it must be recalled that we are dealing with an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act. The proviso to said section mandates that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. As a matter of fact, even though the appellants have challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner, no substantial question of law as such has been framed in the appeal memo. When there is such mandate in the section it is essential to frame the question of law so as to be considered by this Court whether such questions did actually arise for decision. However, the Government Pleader submitted that the substantial question of law involved is whether the facts and circumstances of this case would justify the Commissioner to hold that Nagappan Nair died in the course of his employment. In this context it is worthwhile to examine the evidence of A. Ws 2 and 3 who are the co-workers of the deceased. A.W. 2 Sri Vijayakumaran Nair deposed that he visited the office of the deceased on March 8, 1990 to recommend Sri Sivankutty to take L.I.C. policy through Sri Gokulan, A.W. 3. He further deposed that at that time Sri Nagappan Nair came there with his vehicle and after keeping it in the garage he came out placing his hand on the chest and stating that he was suffering from severe chest pain. He wanted to go to hospital. After applying for leave A.W. 3 took him to hospital along with Sri Gokulan and two of his co-workers. The appellants admitted that the deceased was present in the office on March 8, 1990 and applied for leave from March 9, 1990 to March 21, 1990. The Commissioner relied on the evidence of A.Ws. 2 and 3 and also the documentary evidence. After evaluating the entire evidence on record the Commissioner came to a positive conclusion that the deceased Nagappan Nair died in the course of employment having sustained injuries resulting in death. Thus, what is before us is a finding of fact entered by the Commissioner on the basis of the cogent materials on record. In the aforesaid premises, we do not see any question of law much less substantial question is involved in this case attracting interference by this Court under Section 30.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Raveendran v. B. Somavally and Ors. (1996-I-LLJ-325). In the above decision it is laid down that a finding recorded by the Commissioner, on taking a particular view of the evidence, cannot be questioned howsoever erroneous, as no question of law can be said to have arisen in such cases. The Commissioner while handling cases under the Act has to deal with the evidence tendered by the claimants and on evaluation of entire evidence, findings have to be entered and such findings cannot be called in question invoking the power under Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is arising from such findings. It is axiomatic that when there is no question of law, there cannot be any question of general public importance or any question directly and substantially affecting the rights of parties.
4. The counsel for the respondents has also brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Thengackal Estate v. Reethammal (1996-II-LLJ-511) (Ker-DB) and argued what is required is 'causal connection' between the death and employment. After analysing the facts the Division Bench said that it would be reasonable to conclude that the strain even if it was a normal strain connected with the employment was the reason for the death of the worker. It further said that even proceeding on the basis that the worker was suffering from chest ailment and was prone to heart attack, the circumstances in the case would clearly indicate that the strain due to the work he was doing was the cause which accelerated his death due to heart attack. Of course, it appears the Division Bench was considering the question whether the death of the workman in that case would come within the premise of 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' contained in Section 3 of the Act which is a beneficial provision. It is well settled that while interpreting the provisions contained in a beneficial statute, there is no room for taking a narrow view and the Court is entitled to be generous towards person on whom the benefit has been conferred.
5. It cannot be disputed from the evidence available in this case that there was at least a 'causal connection' between the death and the employment. Therefore on merits also the appellants have no case. Hence, we are of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We do so.