UMA JAISWAL Vs. RADHE GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed in Case No. 38/W.C.A./COC-1-B/01 (F) by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur ('the Commissioner' for short) dismissing the claim of the appellants. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are the unfortunate wife and children of the deceased Bhuneshwar Jaiswal, who was working as Head Mistry in the rice mill, owned by the respondents. He was earning Rs. 2,000 per month as salary. The respondents after installing a motor shaft with other machinery in their rice mill did not take any safety measures. On 25.1.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. while Bhuneshwar Jaiswal was working, his cloth was caught up by the safetyless shaft, due to which he received serious injuries and thereafter he died in the premises of rice mill owned by respondents. Report was lodged at Police Station, Bilha. After receiving information of accident, the respondents had not paid even single penny to the claimants, which inaction on the part of respondents has compelled the claimants to file a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur.

(2.) The respondents had filed their written statement and admitted that deceased was working as helper in their rice mill; accident took place and due to that accident he died. It has also been specifically pleaded that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and safety measures were taken in the rice mill. On the date of accident, the deceased came to attend his duty wearing a shawl, he was warned not to work wearing loose clothes like shawl. Thereafter, the respondents took the shawl from the deceased and kept the same separately. It has further been specifically pleaded that the deceased, however, managed to get back the shawl and attended his duties in the night, without knowledge of the respondents. They also pleaded that despite stern warning as to not to attend duties wearing loose clothes, the deceased attended his duties wearing shawl and during the course of his working, the shawl came into contact with the shaft machine and he got injured and thereafter he died. The deceased was himself negligent although he was aware of the fact that he should not perform his duties before running machine. As the deceased did not pay any heed towards their warning, they are not responsible to pay compensation for the death of the deceased.

(3.) All the parties led their evidence. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner has dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent while doing his job and, therefore, legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to get any compensation under section 3(1) proviso (b) (ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act').