MANAGEMENT OF DEVI PRESS Vs. S SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C.No.62 of 1993. The management of Devi Press being the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) According to the workman/respondent herein, he was employed by the appellant as off-set machine operator with effect from May 22, 1982 on a monthly wages of Rs.2,200. On October 10, 1982 while he was working on the off-set machine papers got struck up in the paper cylinder of this machine at about 1.30a.m. Therefore, he stopped the machine and while he was removing the papers from the paper cylinder by pressing a button cylinder started rolling at full speed and with the result both his hands were crushed in between the paper cylinder. The manager came to the spot of the accident and took him to the Government Stanley Hospital, Madras. After treatment both his hands were amputated at higher sites resulting in 100 percentage of loss of earning capacity. The applicant and his wife approached employer for payment of compensation for the personal injury. Though the employer indicated a sum of Rs.50,000 would be paid as compensation, the appellant did not pay any amount nor deposited as required under Section 4-A(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). With the result, the workman made a total claim of Rs. 1,03,990 towards compensation and a sum of Rs.51,995 towards penalty under Section 4-A of the Act.

(3.) In the counter filed by the opposite party, it was contended that the applicant as an off-set machine operator was fully aware that his duty was only supervisory in nature involving attention to quality of production by adjusting ink levels, perfect registration etc. He also knows that whenever there was any trouble or defect in the running of the machine under his charge, his obligation is to make requisition to the maintenance department for rectifying the defects instead of placing himself in a position where his duties did not call for his meddling with the sophisticated machine. Having admitted that papers were not delivered through the paper cylinder and he stopped the machine by pushing the stop button of the machine, he should have immediately called the services of the maintenance department to rectify the defects and ensure the refunctioning of the machine. Therefore, he had taken the risk of tampering with the machine which was not part of his duty. It is true that the opposite party out of humanitarian consideration, came forward to render help to the applicant in its discretion, but the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be accepted by the opposite party.