PATHROSE Vs. AMMINI JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed Workmen's Compensation Claim No. 19 of 1980 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichur under S.22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. That application was dated 22-12-1979. He claimed exemption from production of court fee stamp for the time being under R.34 of the Kerala Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1958.

(2.) Allegations of the applicant in the petition were, that while working as a Printer in the Press owned by the opposite party on 18-1-1979. his right hand was accidentally caught in the machine and he sustained injuries to all the fingers in the right hand. He was removed to the District Hospital, Trichur. All the fingers had to be amputated. He was treated in the Hospital from 18-l-1979 to 17-3-1979. As a consequence of the injuries be sustained loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60% as certified by the Orthopaedic Surgeon of the District Hospital. That certificate is dated 28-4-1979. He was receiving monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 250/- at the time of the accident. He, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 15,120/- as compensation, since the employer, in spite of his repeated requests, refused to grant his claim. He examined three witnesses, including himself in support of the claim. He had summoned the employer in his application dated 23-9-1981, to produce the attendance register, minimum wages register, day book, ledger and vouchers for the period from 1978 to 31-12-1979. The opposite party filed an affidavit on 13-7-1982 stating that no such records as were mentioned by the applicant were maintained till January, 1981 and therefore those records could not be produced.

(3.) In his evidence as AW-1, the applicant asserted that he was a permanent printer under the first respondent, that he sustained the injury on-18-1-1979 during the course of his employment, that he was taken to the Hospital by the husband of the employer, that he had paid an amount of Rs. 260/-while he was undergoing treatment and that he was entitled to be compensated by the opposite party-employer. He stood a fairly detailed cross examination rather satisfactorily. He asserted, that the employer opposite-party was maintaining records like acquittance register, stamped receipts and vouchers for payment etc., the production of which would show that he was a regular/permanent employee under the opposite party. He also examined a co-worker as AW-2 and a former-Manager of the press as AW3. They asserted that the appellant was employed as a Printer on a regular basis under the opposite-party, that he was involved in an accident in the Press on 18-1-1979 and that he was removed to the Hospital by the husband of the employer. The husband of the opposite-party admitted that AWs. 1 to 3 were working in the Press occasionally. He, however, asserted, that there Was only one permanent workman in the Press. He admitted, that there were no documents to show that even that permanent worker-Shri Jose - was employed by the opposite party. His case was that AWs. 2 and 3 were employed for some time in the Press, but they left the establishment long prior to the date of the accident the former because he demanded additional wages and the latter because he obtained employment elsewhere. It was his case, that there was no scrap of paper evidencing employment of any person in the Press owned by the opposite party. An agricultural worker was examined as MW-2 to say, that the applicant was not involved in any accident in the Press as claimed by him. In his cross examination he admitted that he had seen the applicant working in the Press as a Printer. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner dismissed the application in his order dated 8-6-1983. The applicant has come up in appeal.