RAMRAO ZINGRAJI SHENDE Vs. INDIAN YARN MANUFACTURING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Akola in Work-men's Compensation Application No. 1 of 1980, rejecting his claim vide Judgment and order dt. March 25, 1983.

(2.) THE appellant Ramrao was working in the Indian Manufacturing Company, Akola i. e. the respondent concern. On November 11, 1979, while he was working on the machine, he met with an accident and sustained injuries to his two fingers of his left hand. Both the fingers were crushed in the machine. On the day of incident, his monthly salary was Rs. 675/ -. After the incident, a notice of the incident was given to the respondent and also to the Factory Inspector. The Factory Inspector has visited the factory of the respondent and made investigation and advised the non-applicant to pay the compensation. But, in spite of this, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. Consequently, he was constrained to approach the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Akola under Section 4 of the Workmen's compensation Act, claiming lump sum compensation amounting to Rs. 7093,50/- for the loss of two fingers of his left hand.

(3.) THE respondent resisted the claim of compensation on the various grounds. It is specifically submitted by the respondent that the appellant is not entitle to any compensation as he disobeyed the express orders displayed on the notice board. It is specifically submitted by the respondent in its written statement that the appellant/applicant was specifically instructed to operate the machine from the northern side. In spite of specific instructions, the appellant/applicant has flouted the instructions and tried to operate the machine going towards southern side, where gear exists. The alleged incident which tool place on November 11, 1979, had taken place at the southern side of the machine. In the factory, every worker of the factory, including the appellant/applicant, was instructed not to go to the other side of the machine, as they are not required to attend the operation of the machine. Besides the specific instructions, the safe-guard was fitted to the machine and the general instructions were issued to the workers including the appellant/applicant not to remove the safety guard. The safety guard on the concerned machine was fitted with bolt and in utter disregard of the instructions of the Management and in clear-cut disobedience to the order of the Management, the appellant has removed the safety guard. Thus, according to the respondent, the appellant flouted or disobeyed the written instructions and the notices and as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the worker, it being his negligence.