Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Poonjolai on 9 March, 2006
Author: A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan
Bench: A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1561 of 1996 The Managing Director Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Trichy .. Appellant Vs 1. Poonjolai 2. Kumarasami 3. Indira .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923(8 of 1923) against the order dated 4.3.1996 made in W.C.No.52/93 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation and Deputy commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli. !For Appellant ... Mr. K.Jayaraman ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Muthukrishnan :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in W.C.No.52 of 1993 by the Commissioner of Workmen's compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli. The 1st respondent Managing Director of the Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.
2. The short facts of the case for the purpose of deciding the appeal are as follows:
On 20.2.1993, the deceased Saravanan was a bus conductor in TN-45-N-0081 belonging to the appellant and the bus was plying from Thathaiyangerpettai to Uppilliyapuram at the time of the occurrence, when the bus was checked by the Checking Inspector near Uppiliyapuram, the Checking Inspector had found that some of the passengers were not issued with the tickets and that he had scolded the conductor deceased Saravanan for having failed to issue tickets to all the passengers and for his dereliction in duty he had also checked his collection amount and found that there was a shortage . So out of fear, the deceased Saravanan had consumed "Demacran pesticide", a poison and was taken to the hospital but without responding to the treatment, he breathed his lost on the same day. The legal representatives of the deceased Saravanan had preferred the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Trichy who had awarded a sum of Rs.83,968/- towards compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws1 and 2 were examined and Exs P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs R1 and R2 were marked.
4. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.83,968/-towards compensation with 6% interest. Aggrieved by the award of compensation in W.C.No.52/1993 dated 3.4.1996, the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
5. Now the point for determination in the appeal is as follows:
1) Whether the first respondent is liable to pay any compensation to the claimants which will not come under the purview of Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
6. The Point:
Admitted case of the parties is that only due to the consumption of poison the conductor of the bus had died and it is only a suicide. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation only if the employee dies in the course of his employment as defined under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 3(1) of Workmen's Act 1923 runs as follows.
" If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-
a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding(three days)
b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death(or permanent total disablement) caused by any accident which is directly attributable to-
i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen,or
iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen".
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying on the decision reported in Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd.,-vs- S.Chellathurai(2002 ACJ 1429) and contended that if a person consumes poison at the working place, employer is not bound to pay any compensation. The fact of the said case is that one Vijayakumar, Senior Operator-Trainee of Steel Authority of India Ltd,. had consumed poison on 2.8.1995 night shift and he died on 3.8.1995 while he was working in the laboratory in the Steel Plant. It was contended on behalf of the claimants, the parents of the deceased that since the deceased had consumed poison at the working place, the employer is liable to pay compensation. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had consumed "mercury chloride"
and died due to chemical poisoning. It was held that the consumption of poisoning at the official place will not make the employer responsible to pay compensation and it has been held that "consuming poisonous chemical is not a part of duty and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent and therefore, the claim cannot be sustained". The facts differ from the facts of the case on hand. In this case, the deceased was a conductor and since he has failed to issue tickets to the passengers, the Checking Inspector had scolded him and out of fear, the deceased Saravanan had comsumed poison and died subsequently. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that if compensation is awarded in a case of this nature, then it will in a way indirectly would amount to encourage the suicide activities only for the purpose of claiming compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his argument has pointed out that in Trichy District to get job on the ground of compassionate ground, the sons have murdered their father who were working in Government service and there were 80 cases reported in Trichy District in a year and that it will amount to bad precedent by way of encouraging indirectly the commission of suicide. In this case, if the superior officer viz., the Checking Inspector had scolded the conductor, the remedy open to him is to prefer complaint to the higher officials about the conduct of the Checking Inspector. Instead of resorting to such a course, the deceased had taken an extreme step of committing suicide voluntarily. There is no criminal case filed against the Checking Inspector for having instigated the conductor to commit suicide under Indian Penal Code. Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is very clear that the employer is liable to pay compensation only if the accident had arisen out of and in the course of his employment. In this case, admittedly, there was no accident had occurred during the course of employment. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the employer is not liable to pay compensation to the deceased. But taking into consideration the plight of the claimants, I am of the view that it is a fit case to be recommended to the Government for paying some compensation not less than Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants on humanitarian ground. Hence, I hold on the point that the appellant is not entitled to pay compensation for the claimants in W.C.No.52 of 1993 on the file of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli since there was no accident as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's compensation Act 1923 fixing the liability to the employer to pay compensation. The point is answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award passed in W.c.No.52 of 1993 on the file of the COmmissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli is set aside. But this Court recommends the Government to consider the plight of the claimants in a sympathetic way and to pay a compensation of not less than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Saranavan within a period of three months. The copy of this order is to be communicated to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu for compliance.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would represent that the amount of compensation already deposited to the credit of W.C.No.52 of 1993 on the file of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli may be ordered to be returned. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount deposited by him with accrued interest to the credit of W.C.No.52 of 1993 on the file of Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli. No costs.
sg