JAGDISH Vs. SATISH CHANDRA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the dismissal of the workmans, petition for compensation moved before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Bulandshahr the present F.A.F.O. has been filed.

(2.) THE admitted facts are: that the appellant was employed as a Chaukidar at a petrol pump belonging to the respondent on 21-3-76 on a salary of Rs. 150/- p.m. It is alleged that a dacoity was committed at the petrol pump during day time while the appellant was on duty and in the scuffle which ensued between the dacoits and the appellant to prevent the dacoity he sustained incised wound in the left forearm of his hand. Admittedly, he was taken to the hospital by his employer. Injury report is on the record which also clearly shows that he was brought before the doctor by his employer. The doctor was examined and he has stated that two small fingers of his left hand have become immobule and the entire hand has not been rendered useless. He has, therefore, opined that the loss of capacity was only 50% on account of injury.

(3.) THE short point that arose for consideration is whether on the admitted facts injury had been received by the appellant during the course of employment and in discharge of his duty ? In the written statement the employer did not raise any plea that the appellant was not employed as Chaukidar to perform the duty during day time. Admittedly, the appellant was present at the time of incident and it is undisputed that it is one of the duties of the Chaukidar to protect the property of his employer. If there was a dacoity committed during day time it was the foremost duty of the appellant, as a chaukidar, to try to prevent the same. While doing so if the appellant got injury it must be deemed to have been caused both in the course of employment and also in discharge of his duty as chaukidar. It is strange that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner thought otherwise.