Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted that the G.E. Board had deposited a sum of Rs. 31,000/- with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and as the said amount was withdrawn by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal, the suit filed by the appellants was not maintainable. It was claimed that Section 16 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 read with Section 19(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try suit of the nature filed by the appellants and therefore dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial Judge should not be interfered with in the present appeal. It was stressed on behalf of the Board that before actually starting work of repairing, the deceased had not taken steps to ascertain whether electricity supply was disconnected or not by using an insulated wire and thus there being complete negligence on the part of the deceased, the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. It was asserted that while doing the repairing work, the deceased had neither put on rubber shoes nor gloves supplied by the G.E.B. and therefore the deceased himself being negligent, the appellants were not entitled to any damages. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that at the time of accident, the deceased was getting stipend of Rs. 390/- per month and therefore the damages claimed on the basis that the deceased would have been employed with the Board on completion of training course being erroneous, the compensation as claimed by the appellants should not be awarded.

10. So far as point of jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is concerned, Section 16 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 provides that if personal injury is caused to an apprentice by accident arising out of and in the course of his training as an apprentice, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation which shall be determined and paid, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule. The Schedule appended to Apprentices Act, 1961 reads as under :-

"The Schedule"

(See Section 16.) Modifications in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in its application to apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 - In the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 -

(1) in section 2, -

(a) for clause (e), substitute -

(e) "employer means an employer as defined in the Apprentices Act, 1961, who has engaged one or more apprentices :

(b) omit clause (k);

(c) for clause (m), substitute

(m) "wages" means the stipend payable to an apprentice. Section 13(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 :

11. On analysis of Section 16, it becomes evident that if an apprentice receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his training as an apprentice, his employer is liable to pay compensation. The compensation has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is also required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 16 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 cannot be construed as excluding jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a suit for damages, which may be filed on the basis of tortuous act of the employer or some persons for whose act or default he is responsible.