STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJENDRA KHODABHAI DESHDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is an employee of the State Government, being a Civil servant, not covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ? Even when earning of a workman may increase after he suffers an accident, would he be entitled to claim compensation from the employer ? These are some of the questions which have arisen in this appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the employer-State of Gujarat. Respondent workman was serving as forest guard. On 14/05/1984 while on duty he saw a metador vehicle loaded with logs of wood. As part of his duty to safeguard the forest wood he intercepted the metador and tried to detain it. But he could not. Hence he pursued the metador and over-reached the same. On being questioned, the inmates of the metador got angry and one of them assaulted the workman and inflicted sword blow on his right hand. He was removed to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad and was required to undergo treatment for some time. He was ultimately cured, but with some impairment in his right hand. Below the wrist of his right hand he lost some functional powers. Doctor certified that the workman had suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 40 per cent. The applicant-workman served a notice dated 30/01/1996 upon the employer the State of Gujarat and demanded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as and by way of compensation. The request was not acceded to by the State Government. Hence the workman filed application for compensation. The appellant-State Government resisted the same on facts as well as on law points.

(2.) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 14,960.00 together with interest at the rate of 6% and was also entitled to claim penalty to the extent of 30% of the amount of compensation awarded. The Commissioner inter alia held that the appellant-employer had remained negligent in making payment of compensation amount and hence imposed penalty as stated above. In short it was directed that the workman be paid an amount of Rs. 14,960.00 with 6% interest and an amount of Rs. 4,488.00 (being the amount of 30% of compensation amount) within three months failing which the amount of penalty was required to be paid with 6% interest. The appellant-employer has felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award and has filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the workman is a civil servant and therefore he is not covered by the definition of "workman" occurring in Sec. 2(n) of the "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (For short "the Act"). The term "workman" is defined in Sec. 2(n) of "the Act". It means, any person other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. This definition is required to be interpreted in light of the object of the Act which is beneficial in character. "The Act" aims to protect the relatively weaker section of the society. Its object is to do social justice and to provide for speedy and cheap forum for the workman and/or his dependents for claiming compensation on account of unforeseen events (i.e. accident) arising out of and during the course of employment. "The Act" is required to be interpreted liberally so that the benefits sought to be conferred on the workmen or on the dependents of the workmen reach to them and the same are not lost on account of literal and pedantic approach in interpreting the provisions of "the Act".