Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr.A.L.Sharma learned AGP has raised contention before this Court that son of the opponents original claimants was working with the present appellants. The opponents' son was working as a temporary watchman and labourer to cultivate the plants in the jungle and it was a seasonal work. That on 2.7.1997, the son of opponents died of unnatural death either by accident or by bite of some insect and as a result of unnatural death of Gordhanbhai, claim petition was filed before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot claiming Rs.2,20,597.47 ps. The claimants have produced certain documents before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot. The written statement was filed vide Exh.12 by present appellants where appellants have denied contentions and averments made in claim petition. The main contention which was raised by appellants that opponents claimants have failed to prove that they were the legal representatives of deceased and another important contention was that deceased was murdered and further contention is taken by appellants that there is no relationship of employer and employee exists.

4. Mr.Kishor M. Paul appearing on behalf of respondents claimants submitted that deceased was a workman working with appellants and he satisfied the definition of ' workman' given in the Act. He also submitted that deceased was aged about 25 years working as a watchman / labourer with appellants which fact has been admitted by appellants in written statement. He further submitted that on behalf of claimants, Kukabhai Deharbhai was examined vide Exh.12 and on behalf of opponents, Shri Vallabhbhai Jerambhai Bhimani. The police papers were produced by claimants vide Exh.18 as Exh.31 to 109 and claimants have proved the fact that deceased was son of claimants, against which no rebuttal evidence was produced by appellants. Therefore, Mr.Paul submitted that claimants were dependents of his son. He also submitted that in written statement filed before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot by appellants vide Exh.12, appellants admitted that deceased was working as a watchman and receiving salary as per Minimum Wages Act and having relationship as an employer and employee has been proved. He further submitted that at the time of death he was found from work place and therefore, learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot has considered this fact and as per evidence of witness of appellants Shri Vallabhbhai Jerambhai at Exh.112 that deceased was employed by appellants on 2.7.1997, coming on duty / job in morning, remained in duty upto 4.00 p.m. and thereafter, what happened with the deceased, he is not aware about the subsequent facts. The deceased died on 2.7.1997 after 4.00 p.m. but, on which time he died and how he has been died, for that witness was not aware about having any information. He also submitted that even there is no medical opinion or PM report which suggest that for what reason the deceased died or what is the cause for death. The death certificate was produced on record vide Exh.20. Therefore, he submitted that claimants proved their case properly which has been rightly considered by learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot. Therefore, no error is committed which requires interference by this Court. He also submitted that no substantial question of law has been raised in first appeal and therefore, under Section 30 of the Act is not maintainable. He also submitted that at the time of admitting the appeal, this Court has not framed any substantial question of law for deciding first appeal. Therefore, present first appeal is required to be dismissed only on that ground.

5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and also perused the judgment and order passed by learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot. The claimants Shri Kukabhai Deharbhai is the father and Jivuben Kukabhai is the mother of deceased. The deceased was working with respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for more than 5 years in Jambudiya Village near Jivapar Forest as a Watchman and labourer. He was receiving salary of Rs.56.50 ps. minimum wages from appellants. On 2.7.1997, he was on duty with respondent No.3 and on the said day, he died and his dead body was found on 3.7.1997. At that time, there was blood found from mouth, right ear and also having some injury in left side ribs of dead body. There were also injury other parts of body viz. Left leg and other injuries on various parts of the body. Therefore, two presumptions have been arrived either he may have died during course of employment due to bite of insect or it may happen that he was murdered by somebody and for that, a complaint was filed before Vankaner Police Station. The claimants were dependents of deceased and he was aged about 25 years, receiving monthly salary of Rs.1695/- and claiming compensation of notice dated 23.12.1997, which notice was received by appellants, to which no reply was given and no compensation was paid, though accident took place during course of employment at the site of work place. The reply was filed by appellants before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot denying averments made in claim petition. But deceased was employed by appellants and was working with appellants as a watchman and receiving salary / wages from appellants. The issues have been framed by learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot vide Exh.8. Certain documents have been produced by claimants after evidence of Kukabhai vide Exh.12. The FIR has been produced on record vide Exh.18, Inquest Panchnama was produced vide Exh.19, death certificate vide Exh.20, birth certificate vide Exh.21, pay slip vide Exh.22 and notice sent through post and therefore, postal receipt was produced vide Exh.23 and such notice was received by appellants, acknowledgment thereof is produced on record vide Exh.24. An FIR lodged at Vankaner Police Station vide Exh.31 and all papers are produced upto Exh.109. Thereafter, closing pursis was filed by claimant vide Exh.110 and amount of penalty has not been pressed by claimant vide Exh.114. Vide Exh.112 evidence of opponent's witness Shri Vallabhbhai J. Bhimani. Thereafter, closing pursis of appellant vide Exh.113. Thereafter, issues have been decided by learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot. On basis of evidence of claimants, Exh.17, chief examination of claimants and cross-examination by advocate of appellants and considering Exh.18 and Exh.31 to Exh.109, no rebuttal evidence produced on record by appellants before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot and therefore, learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot has come to conclusion that claimants are dependents and deceased was son of claimants. Therefore, they are entitled to file claim petition. While deciding Issue No.2, learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot has considered admission made by appellants in written statement that deceased was working with them as a labourer / watchman, receiving salary / wages as per Minimum Wages Act and pay slip was also produced on record. Therefore, considering evidence of claimants as well as cross-examination and evidence of appellants' witness Shri Vallabhbhai Jerambhai, learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot has come to conclusion that deceased was 'workman' working with appellants. It is necessary to note at this stage that no specific contention was raised by appellants before learned W.C.Commissioner, Rajkot that deceased was not covered by definition of 'workman' under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. Definition of 'workman' provides that if any person employed in such capacity as is satisfied in schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act. Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them.

5.1 I have perused written statement vide Exh.12 filed by appellants before W.C.Commissioner. Even in that written statement also, no such contention was raised by appellants that deceased was not covered by definition of 'workman' given in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. Therefore, W.C.Commissioner has rightly come to conclusion on basis of pay slip as well as evidence of witness Vallabhbhai Jerambhai and evidence of claimants. Therefore, Issue No.2 has been rightly decided by W.C.Commissioner.

6. The evidence of claimants supported the averments made in claim petition. In cross-examination of claimants, the deceased was daily and normally coming back to home by 7.30 p.m. However, on 2.7.1997 he did not come to home, therefore, it was presumed by claimants that he must have been retained by appellants for further work. The evidence of claimants also suggests that normally in case of workload, deceased remained continued on work about 2 to 4 days. Therefore, it was presumed by claimants that he must have been engaged in work, therefore, he had not come back to home. Thereafter, claimants have inquired from the appellants going to Jivapar Forest. At that occasion, dead body of deceased was found and it was found on work place where he was working. The PM report was received from Civil Hospital, Jamnagar and according to evidence of witness of appellants, Shri Vallabhbhai Jerambhai at Exh.112, the deceased was on duty on 2.7.1997 and reported at work in morning and was working upto 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, what happened with the deceased, the witness was not aware about that fact. But one fact is clear that either he was murdered or death caused due to bite of insect after 4.00 p.m. on 2.7.1997. The said witness also admitted that dead body was found from work place where he was performing his duty. Therefore, on date of death, deceased was on duty and died during course of employment. Therefore, W.C.Commissioner has considered police papers from Exh.31 to 109 and also PM Note at Exh.106 which was carried out on 4.7.1997 and according to report given by Medical Officer in postmortem that period of death is prior to 48 hrs. to 72 hrs. means considering date of death 2.7.1997 it comes to 72 hrs. Therefore, deceased died on 2.7.1997 on the date on which he was on duty. The report of analyst of dead body of vishera is at Exh.109 and no real cause of death has been given in Exh.109. Therefore, W.C.Commissioner has rightly come to conclusion on basis of evidence of both sides and also considering police papers and PM report and vishera chemical analysis report that on date of death as per Exh.20 death certificate, the deceased died during course of employment and accident has arisen during course of employment while performing duty at the place where he was posted by appellants.