ASHOK KUMAR Vs. GLAZI LABORATORIES (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from order for setting aside the order dated 24-7-1980 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner) rejecting the claim of the appellant under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (briefly 'the Act, 1923').

(2.) Admitted facts are that on 30-12-1976 when the appellant was under employment of the respondent company he met with an accident, that at the time of the accident he was operating seamer machine being used for seaming ghee containers and that on the aforesaid date while he was working in ghee packing department he lost one of his fingers of his right hand, when the accident occurred. For such injury, the appellant claimed Rs. 2,723 in lump sum towards compensation by application dated 31-7-1978 before the Commissioner. The latter recorded the statement of the appellant and of the witnesses produced by the Management and then rejected the claim of the appellant by the impugned order dated 24-7-1980.

(3.) The Management set up its case before the Commissioner that the appellant was put on duty for filling the ghee containers and that it was not his duty to operate the seamer machine to seam the ghee containers ; that one Jaivir Singh, who was trained to operate the seamer machine, was put on duty to operate that seamer machine ; that the accident occurred in the first shift in the night on 30-12-1976 ; that Jaivir Singh at about 3.25 a. in. had gone to the urinal having put off the machine ; that he warned all the workmen working around him not to operate the said machine during his absence ; that he also informed the Supervisor, namely, Harish Babu, of his temporary absence ; that during his absence the appellant unauthorisedly and negligently operated the seamer machine and got himself injured ; that the appellant exposed himself to that important risk in violation of the instructions of Jaivir Singh, therefore, the case falls within the exception under Sec. 3 (1) proviso (b) (ii) of the Act, 1923, and that the appellant is not entitle.i to any compensation.