MOHANLAL PRABHURAM Vs. FINE KNITTING MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This purports to be an application in revision under section 115 of the C. P. C. from the order of the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Ahmedabad the material facts may be briefly stated as follows: One Deoshankar and another Mohanlal were working in the Fine Knitting Mills Company Ltd., at Ahmedabad. On 29-7-1955, they made applications before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, stating that they received personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. They stated known persons who were instigated by one Meghasing on behalf of the company. The applicant Deoshankar had a fracture on his hand. The applicants were removed to the Civil Hospital. Deoshankar had a swelling on his right ankle, and Mohanlal had a fracture on his hand. The applicants were removed to the Civil Hospital. Deoshankar was discharge on 4-8-1955, and Mohanlal was discharged on 24-10-1955. The monthly wages of Deoshankar amounted to Rs. 110/- and those of Mohanlal amounted to Rs. 120/-. Mohanlal claimed Rs. 176/-. It is not necessary to state the claim made by Deoshankar because he has not come up in revision. The Mill opposed the applications and contended that he applicants did not receive injuries by accident arising out of or in the course of this quarrel that they received the injuries. The Commissioner, believing the evidence of one Shivprased, who was examined for the Mill, held that the applicants had failed to prove that they received injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. From that decision, Mohanlal alone has come up in revision.

(2.) Mr. Patel for the opponent raised a preliminary objection contending that the revision application was not competent. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Spring Mills Ltd. v. G. D. Ambedkar, 51 Bom LR 148: (AIR 1949 Bom 188). This decision related to the question as to whether an application in revision would lie from the decision given by the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the course of their judgment, however. Their Lordships, relying upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench in Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Bhima Raoji, (Civil Revn. Appln. No. 255 of 1926 Bom), observed at p. 152 of Bom LR: (at p. 191 of AIR) as follows:

(3.) Turning to the merits of the claim, on behalf of the two applicants. Deoshankar was the only witness who was examined. He stated that he and Mohanlal were assaulted by Meghasing, operating in the Dyeing Department of the Opponent Mills and three unknown persons when they were working in the Press building Department. He further stated that the assault was sudden and unprovocated. This evidence was disbelieved by the Commissioner on the ground that Shivprasad the reling clerk of the Mills, stated that the workers of the Dyeing Department had brought yarn to the building department and the applicants objected to it, and therefore, a quarrel ensued. I have been shown a certified copy of the statement made by Shivprasad, and I find that nowhere in his deposition he has made the kind of statement which has been attributed to him by the Commissioner in his order. On the other hand, he stated: "After the incident, I learnt that a quarrel had taken place between the applicants on the one hand and Megasing and others on the other hand." In his cross-examination, he stated: "I went there when the quarrel was going on." Thus, it is clear that Shivprasad had no personal knowledge and whatever he stated about the quarrel was based on hear-say. It may that he went to the place whenthe quarrel was in progrss. In any case, it is clear from the statement that he was not present at the time when the quarrel commenced. He is not, therefore, in a position to say as that how the quarrel started and by whom. Deoshankar has emphatically asserted that it was artising and three other person, who accompanied him assaulted him. It is, therefore, clear that the finding of the Commissioner is not only without evidence, but is opposed to the evidence led in this case. That finding, therefore will have to be upset.