Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Leela Devi And Anr. vs Sh. Ram Lal Rahu And Anr. on 15 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: II(1988)ACC617, [1990(60)FLR662], (1990)ILLJ364HP
JUDGMENT P.D. Desai, C.J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act"), is directed against the award dated June 2, 1987, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sadar Sub-Division, District Bilaspuar, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner"), disallowing the claim for compensation lodged by the appellants (widow and daughter of the deceased workman) on the ground that the application for compensation was not maintainable since it was not established that the death had occurred as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
2. The case of the appellants before the Commissioner was that the deceased was employed as Watchman in the Cement Factory of the second respondent and that the first respondent, who is a labour contractor, had arranged to provide the services of the deceased to the second respondent. The deceased was assigned fluty on Jan. 31, 1984/ February 1, 1984 between 12 midnight and 8 A.M. It was winter season. No woollen clothing was provided to the deceased nor any heating arrangement was made at the place of his duty despite request. As a result of the bitter cold, the deceased started having pain in the stomach. He was removed to the hospital of the Cement Factory where he breathed his last on Feb. 1, 1984 at 7 A.M. The appellants alleged that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the death of the deceased was attributable to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and that, therefore, they were entitled to compensation in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act.
3. The respondents contested the claim on the common ground that the deceased met with his death in natural course and that it had no causal connection with his employment. The second respondent took a specific plea that an inquiry was got conducted into the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and during the course of such inquiry the aforesaid case set-up by the appellants in the instant proceeding was found to be false.
4. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Commissioner, an application was moved by and on behalf of the appellants praying that in view of the rival contentions of the parties, the interest of justice required that issues be framed and that evidence be recorded before arriving at any final decision. No order was passed on the said application and the Commissioner straightway proceeded to hear the arguments. In the course of the impugned decision he recorded a finding that it was not established that the deceased caught cold and developed stomach ache as a result of being on duty on the day in question and that he could have suffered from the said ailments even while being confined to his house. Alternatively, he found that even if it was assumed that the death had occurred due to cold and stomach ache and that such death could be regarded as an accident, no causual connection between the death and the employment was established. In view of this finding, he held that the liability of the employer was not attracted under Section 3 of the Act and that the application for compensation was not maintainable.
5. The impugned decision suffers from two apparent errors, one of which is an error in the realm of substantive law and the other of procedure.
6. It is well settled that the material words occurring in the relevant statutory provision, namely, "if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" have to be liberally interpreted. This judicial approach has resulted in the theory of extended liability being propounded. Even unexplained deaths, which are often characterised as natural deaths, have made Sherlock Holmeses of many Judges, (see: Horovitz in his work "Injury and Dealth under Workmen's Compensation Laws"). If the employee's unexplained or apparently natural death has occurred during the course of employment, the adjudicator is not relieved of the responsibility of finding out whether there was any causal connection between the nature of employment and the death, whether the employment was an attributable cause or whether it accelerated the death, whether me death was not only due to the disease from which the workman was suffering but also on account of the factors which have a bearing upon or which are coupled with the employment etc. If such or similar factors are present, then the employer is liable and it can be said that the death occurred as a consequence of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner having failed to appreciate correctly the true meaning and ambit of the expression "by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" occurring in the material statutory provision has committed an error in the field of substantive law.
7. The error of procedure which is manifest is that since the parties were, at variance on material issues of law and fact, it was the duty of the Commissioner to raise specific issues covering the controversy and to provide to them an opportunity to establish their respective cases. A proceeding under the Act is in substitution of a suit for damages triable by a civil court. To arrive at a finding on a disputed question of law or on a disputed mixed question of law and fact in such a proceeding without affording to the parties an opportunity to lead evidence is to deny justice. Such a course of action clearly violates the basic rules of natural justice which must inform every Presiding Officer of a judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunal. In the present case, no such opportunity was given despite a specific application in that behalf having been moved by the appellants and there is thus a material illegality or irregularity in the manner of reaching the decision.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned decision is quashed and set aside. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for disposal in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the course of this judgment. Since the claim is based on an event which has occurred way back on Feb. 1, 1984, the case requires to be disposed of on the most expeditious basis. The Commissioner is, therefore, directed to hear and decide the case on or before Oct. 15, 1988. The time limit is peremptory and mandatory. The parties are left to bear their own costs of the appeal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
9. The parties to appear before the Commissioner on Aug. 1, 1988.