MANAGER CHANDAMETTA COLLIERY WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. MANGLOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 23. 4. 1987, passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jabalpur, in Case No. 8 of 1984.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 Mangloo filed an application claiming that he was employed as a Dresser in the coal mines of the appellant. He claimed that he became permanently disabled because he had contracted pneumoconiosis as he was working as an underground worker in the coal mines of the appellant. It was alleged by him that his services were terminated on account of the disease, but no compensation was given to him by the appellant. It was specifically alleged by respondent No. 1 that on 25. 7. 1983 his services were dispensed with and he also claimed that he was entitled to compensation on account of permanent disability because his emoluments were between Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,000 per month. The application of the respondent No. 1 was opposed by the appellant and it denied the allegations in the application including that the respondent's wages were between Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,000/ -. It was asserted that respondent No. 1 earned more than Rs. 1,000/- by way of wages received from the appellant. Here it may be noted that the appellant did not mention the amount of wages specifically. It was also denied that the respondent No. 1 was suffering from the disease known as pneumoconiosis. It was further alleged in reply that respondent No. 1 had completed his service without any difficulty and had retired on 25. 7. 1983. All other allegations regarding clinical examination by the Medical Board etc. were denied by the appellant.

(3.) IT appears that this case was consolidated with other cases and were tried together with Case Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 44, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 of 1984, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 21 of 1985 and 8, 9 and 12 of 1986 and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed a common order in respect of all those cases. So far as respondent No. 1 was concerned, it was found that be was getting less than Rs. 1,000/-per month and he was suffering from the disease known as pneumoconiosis. It was also held that in view of the evidence on record, the respondent was entitled to Rs. 42,000/- plus Rs. 3,000/- by way of penalty and interest upon the amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, if the appellant did not deposit the amount within sixty days. In doing so, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has relied on the evidence of Dr. Surange. In view of the evidence on record, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner recorded a finding of fact that respondent No. 1 Mangloo suffered the aforesaid disease and he was permanently disabled. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner also observed that it was not disputed before him that the respondent No. 1 was not in service.