Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Dulari vs Superintending Engineer, P.S.E.B. And ... on 8 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: II(1988)ACC32, (1989)IILLJ132P&H
JUDGMENT G.C. Mital, J.
1. Balbir Chand was working as a work-charge employee under the Executive Engineer (Distribution), Division Malerkotla and the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, (for short 'the Board'), D/S. Circle, Sangrur. On 3rd October, 1983, he was working on electric pole for giving electric connections to M/s. Hari Kishan Rice Sheller, Amargarh. While he was engaged in fixing electric wire on the poles, on either side of the road, P.R.T.C. bus No. PUC 3263 came from Amargarh side at a high speed and dragged electric wires hanging on the road. As a result, the pole on which he was working was broken from the middle and he fell down and died instantaneously.
2. Widow of Balbir Chand workman filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') before the concerned Commissioner for award of compensation, as her husband had died in the course of his employment while on active duty. He was drawing salary of Rs. 600/- or Rs. 610/- per month, which is not very clear from the record.
3. In reply, the opposite side admitted that he was working as alleged but pleaded that he died due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and it cannot be said that he died in the course of employment. No other plea was raised, nor the detailed facts stated in the application about his working on the pole at the time of accident were denied.
4. During trial, the claimant produced Didar Singh, Assistant Lineman of the Board, Sub-Division Amargarh, and while appearing as AW 3, he made statement on oath saying that at about 5.45 p.m. Balbir Chand was working on the pole in discharge of his official duty and the cable wire was crossing the road approaching the pole and a rehri was parked on the main road to prevent traffic and for signal. The bus struck the rehri and as a result of which the wires were pulled by the bus and the pole on which Balbir Chand was working, was broken from the middle and he fell down on the ground and died immediately and the matter was reported to the police station at about 6.15 p.m., copy of which is Exh. A-1. He testified that he died during the course of employment while on duty. In cross-examination it was tried to be highlighted that duty hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. but he maintained that for the maintenance staff there was no time limit. He further stated that he was deputed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to work there and there were ten other workers and Balbir Chand was one of them. He also stated that sometimes they used to work till 4 to 5 p.m. and sometimes till 6 p.m. and on the ill-fated day they were working till the accident took place. The witnesses who appeared on behalf of the opposite side are Jagdish Chand SDO, RW 1 and Rai Singh, Junior Engineer, as RW 2. According to their respective statements, the duty hours were stated to be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that no over-time is paid to the employees. According to RW 2 he had not given any order to the employees to work beyond 5 p.m., that on 3rd October, 1983 at about 4 p.m. there was a storm and rain because of which work was suspended and he left the spot at 4.15 p.m. for the grid station to find out as to when electricity was to be resumed. He admitted that Didar Singh, Assistant Lineman, was left on duty. He further stated that he came back after 2 hours to find out about electric connection.
5. From the aforesaid evidence, the Com missioner came to the conclusion that the deceased continued to work beyond the duty hours at his own risk and, therefore, cannot be said to have died during the course of employment. As a result, by order dated 5th May, 1986, the Commissioner dismissed the claim application. This is appeal by the claimant.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the Commissioner took totally a perverse view. Didar Singh, Assistant Lineman, was on duty when RW 2 left the site at 4.15 p.m. due to storm and rain. It is important to notice that RW 2 did not state that he told Didar Singh and the workmen to leave the work. He only stated that due to rain and storm the work was suspended and Didar Singh. Assistant Lineman and the work-charge employees were left at the spot. After RW 2, it was Didar Singh, Assistant Lineman, who gave order or direction to the employees and ac cording to his statement appearing as AW 3, Balbir Chand resumed work after storm and was working at about 6 p.m. on the pole for stretching the wires between the poles which were on the two sides of the road so that the road could be cleared. RW 2 has exhibited total dereliction of duty. If the work had been left at the spot as it was, the result would have been that the wires would have been on the road causing much more damage. Therefore, it was the duty of the employees of the Board to either remove the wires from the road or to complete the work by fixing the wires irrespective of the fact whether duty hours were over or not. To my mind, Didar Singh, Assistant Line-man, worked with responsibility and persuaded the workmen to continue with the work even beyond duty hours so that the wires could be stretched in order to clear the road. It is possible that if RW 2 had not left the scene at 4.15 p.m. and had taken a little more interest in the work, the wires may have been stretched on the poles earlier to the accident and the accident could be avoided.
7. According to the reasoning given by the Commissioner, if a workman tries to be more responsible and continues to work beyond duty hours instead of reward, he is to suffer the penalty. If a workman continues to work whether up to the duty hours or beyond on a job directed by his superiors, he continues to be on duty and in the course of his employment. Any other view would be totally perverse.
8. Hence believing the statement of AW 3, I hold that the deceased was on duty in the course of his employment when the accident took place and as such his widow was entitled to compensation under the Act. If the case had been under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, much higher compensation would have been awarded to the widow but under the Act, there is a Schedule which limits the liability, which is much less. If claim had been laid against the Transport Department and the State of Punjab, the widow would have been entitled to much more amount but since Motor Vehicles Act provides for filing the claim under the Act in regard to the workman, who died or suffered injuries in an accident in the course of employment, then claim is to be laid under the Act. Viewing the case from any angle, the widow would have been entitled to compensation either from the State Government or from the Board, which is an undertaking of the State Government.
9. The counsel for the claimant has argued that since it is not clear on the record whether the income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- or Rs. 610/- per month, it may be considered that his income was Rs. 600/- per month. On this basis he has urged that compensation payable would be Rs. 21,600/- under the Schedule. The stand is obviously correct. Accordingly, I order that the appellant-claimant would be paid Rs. 21,600/- as compensation for the death of her husband.
10. The counsel appearing for the claimant has further urged that under Section 4A of the Act the claimant is entitled to penalty for non-payment as soon as it fell due. In this regard the claim was made even before the Commissioner but the amount was not deposited and, there fore, under the aforesaid Section the penalty of 50 per cent should be imposed. This court in Rekha Rani v. Harcharan Dass 1983 Cur LJ 175, imposed penalty of 50 per cent for non-payment of the amount. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- would serve the purpose and I order accordingly.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 21,600/- as compensation with 6 per cent per annum interest from the date of accident till payment plus Rs. 10,000/- as penalty under Section 4A of the Act. In case the amount is not paid in two months from today, on the amount, which would become payable on the expiry of two months from today, the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from the date till realisation. To make it clear, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum would be payable on the total amount payable under this order after expiry of two months from today till realisation.