SHOBHANABEN D. DANGE Vs. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by Dr. Mrs. Shobhanaben B. Dange, who pending hearing and final disposal of the said application died, for compensation contending that she was appointed by the respondents C.J. Hospital, Surendranagar, on a monthly salary of Rs. 675/- inclusive of all allowances from 25th September 1978. This Hospital was run by a public Trust named Tabibi Rahat Mandal. It was her contention that this establishment was covered under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and as per Section 38-A the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act would be applicable to the respondent trust establishment, It was her contention that during the course of her employment and arising out of her employment she received injuries and was suffering from disclasion or slip disc. It is the contention of the appellant who is the heir of the deceased Dr. Mrs. Shobhanaben Dange that because of the hard work Dr. Mrs. Dange developed hyper tension, acidity etc. and subsequently she expired.

(2.) THE Commissioner for workmen's compensation and Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar by his judgment and order dated 3rd November 1982 rejected the said application by holding that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act were not applicable to the respondent establishment. He further held that Dr. Mrs. Dange had not received the injuries during the course of her employment and arising out of her employment with the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant has preferred the aforesaid appeal.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to consider that at the relevant time i.e. in 1978-79 the Bombay Shops and Establishment act was applicable to the respondent Hospital and thereby in view of Section 38-A the Workmen's Compensation Act was applicable to Assistant Lady Medical Officer Dr. Mrs. Dange. However, the learned advocate for the appellant contended that recently in 1983-84 Government has issued notification that to the hospitals the Bombay Shops and Establishments act would be applicable. In our view, this contention deserves to be rejected as there is no question of retrospective application of the said act.