SABARI MILLS LTD Vs. M. KULANDAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against an award of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The respondent was working as a watchman in the mills of the appellant. On 30th of November, 1978, he was attacked by four persons who entered the mill premises and assaulted him with la this. He claimed a lumpsum payment of compensation of Rs. 17,640, half monthly payment of Rs. 580 from 30th November, 1978 to 22nd April, 1979 and medical expenses of Rs. 905.50. His case was that he was working as a watchman and his wages were Rs. 470.60 per month. On 30th of November, 1978, when his shiftwork was between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., he came to the mill at 1.50 p.m. placed the cycle inside the cycle stand and came straight to the watchman's shed. The duty watchman was allowed to go away and the applicant was wearing his uniform. While so wearing one Genesan came and pulled his legs. Ganesan and four others began to beat him with lathis. The bones in two hands and the ankles of the legs were broken and the knees also received heavy blows. At that time his brother and other watchman came shouting and immediately the culprits bolted away. The General Manager of the mill and the sub-Inspector of Police came to the spot. He was carried to the police station in a car and from there he was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy. He was an inpatient in the hospital for 68 days. According to the respondent, the cause for the assault was that he scolded Ganesan's wife When she wanted to graze cattle inside the mill premises on 29th November, 1978. It was part of his duty to enforce the company rules which prohibits grazing of cattle inside the premises. Therefore, the respondent had prevented the cattle from grazing inside the premises. On account of this quarrel between him and Ganesan's wife, enmity arose and the very next day, he was attacked. As a result of the injuries sustained, the respondent was unable to lift any weight with his right hand and he is not able to stand properly as the knees are not functioning properly. In spite of the claim for compensation for the disablement suffered, the same has not been forthcoming and, therefore, the application was filed before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli, claiming compensation as stated above.

(2.) THE appellant-mill took the stand that it is true that on 30th November, 1978, the respondent was beaten. But it was not due to the quarrel that was supposed to have taken place on 29th November, 1978 between the wife of Ganesan and the workman. On the contrary, the workman tried to misbehave with the wife of Ganesan and, therefore, there was enmity between the two. The entire family of Ganesan wanted to seek vengeance on the workman. Therefore, on 30th November, 1978, they beat the workman as a result of which the injuries had been sustained. Where, therefore, the injuries were not suffered either out of or In the course of employ-ment, there can be no Hablity whatever as far as the appellant is concerned.

(3.) MR . Rangarajan, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously argued that first of all this is not an accident. It is a quarrel between the parties resulting in criminal assault. May be. But for that the management cannot be made liable. Assuming that it is an accident, in order that the liability may be fastened on management, it must be one arising in the course of employment. Where there is evidence on record to show as spoken to by the Factory Manager, Subramanian, that Kandaswami has been dismissed because of this incident and further suggestions have been made to PW No. 1 himself about his misbehaving with Genesan's wife that version ought to have been accepted. As a matter of fact, a request was made by the appellant management to reopen the case in order to determine whether the version as spoken to by PW 1 was correct or not. The records relating to the domestic enquiry against Kandaswami had in fact been summoned by the Labour Union and for reasons best known, the Union did not produce the record. Those records were sought to be relied on by the management and that request had been unjustifiably turned down. An opportunity ought to have been afforded to the management to have Kandaswami examined on their side. Lastly, on the quantum it is submitted there is no total disablement, but only partial disablement. There- fore, the award of 60 per cent, is not supported.