JEEV URJA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SITABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by original respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Judgment and Award passed by learned Commissioner for workmen's compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nanded in W.C.N.F.A. No.16/2011 dated 24.02.2015, whereby on the basis of petition filed by present respondent, they were directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,63,795/- together with interest @ 12% from the expiry of one month from the date of accident till its realisation.

(2.) Original petitioner contended that she is a widow and was maintaining her minor children. She was employed as a skilled labour with respondent No.1. The nature of her job to insert raw material in the machine. Initially she was paid with the wage @ Rs.70/- per day, but since March, 2010 she has been given wages @ Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondents had allowed her to reside in the factory premises and she was also doing other work as per the direction of the respondents. As usual she started her work on 05.09.2010, however, her saree was caught in the machine, as a result of which, she was caught in the machine and her right leg was crushed. It is stated that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not followed the rules of Factory Act and therefore, the said accident had taken place. She was treated at Guru Govindsingh Memorial Government Hospital, Nanded. She was operated four times and her right leg from hip has been permanently disabled. She had stated about the accident to the Medical Officer, who had recorded the fact on 05.09.2010 and had issued letter to the Police Chowky. However, she was threatened by the respondents and restrained from making complaint with the police. After discharge she joined her duty and then she was paid Rs.3,000/- per month. But the respondents have not paid wages of further six months. Ultimately she lodged the report with the police and issued legal notice to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the respondent admitted the contents of the notice partly and denied the other. Since she has suffered 100% permanent disability, she has claimed compensation, so also, she has claimed 50% of the amount as penalty.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing written statement. They admitted the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 as that of employee and employer. However, they denied that the petitioner was a skilled labour. They also admitted the accident and stated that it had occurred during the course of the employment. It was contended that since the petitioner was unskilled labour, she was specifically instructed not to handle the machine. However, suo moto she had kept her leg in the machine to get compensation. It is also stated that the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of the petitioner herself and therefore, she is not entitled to get compensation.