VIDYARAM KANAUHA Vs. PUNABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND bout of litigation employer is fighting in this Court challenging the award passed against him under the Workmen's Vidyaram Kanauha vs. Punabi and Ors. (12. 12. 1991 -MPHC) Page 2 of 11 yaram Kanauha vs. Punabi and Ors. (12. 12. 1991 -MPHC) Page 2 of 11 Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act' ). Earlier, he had come in M. A. No. 112 of 1987 when the award passed on July 21, 1987 was set aside on the technical ground that the judgment was not well-written one and the Commissioner was required to "record his judgment in accordance with Rule 32 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923 and to dispose of the proceeding by March 15, 1988. Accordingly, a fresh judgment is passed on July 2, 1991, herein impugned and thereunder the liability of the employer stands reiterated.

(2.) ADMITTED facts of the case are few and those too are the contentious ones. Those I may refer to immediately to project the cleavage of (sic) the rival versions set up by parties, albeit with regard to the single legal contention. Limitation of this Court's jurisdiction in appeal under Section 30 of the Act is to be kept always in view and parties are also conscious of that position and have joined on the single legal contention--whether deceased Jagdish for whose death compensation is claimed was a 'workman' and whether his death in the fatal accident took place in the course of employment.

(3.) PRAG (since deceased) along with four had filed on March 23, 1977 the claim petition demanding compensation under the Act for his son's (Jagdish) death on January 22, 1977 alleging that he was asked to report for duty at 7. 00 p. m. in the evening to the appellant to do work in connection with irrigation of his agricultural farm. He was being paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 7/ -. There was a belting between the shafting of the water pump and electric motor supplying the power but there was no safety guard; Jagdish's scarf (pancha) got entangled in the shafting and the belting and he was drawn between the two which resulted in his being fatally injured and his head being severed from the body. He also alleged that the electric motor could not be stopped by switching off the motor because power was being stolen from direct mains and the motor was connected directly to the mains. Claimant Nos. 2 to 6 were minor brothers and sister of the deceased and they were dependent on him because his father, the claimant No. 1, had no land or any property and was a farm labourer. For maintaining the family, deceased Jagdish and Prag made joint contributions out of their earnings. The said claimant Prag also stated that on January 31, 1977, he had sent a notice to the non-applicant/appellant demanding compensation. At para 13, he stated that he had made the report in respect of the incident to the police for taking necessary action, but the non-applicant was an influential person and he had exercised undue influence on the police and the complaint made was hushed up.