BANSIDHAR MUNNALAL Vs. RAMCHANDRA BARDICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923) by the employer who has been ordered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ujjain, to compensate the respondent for the loss of one eye being hit by a piece of stone, in the course of his employment under the appellant for the breaking of stone slabs. The points raised are firstly, that he was not really working at the time of the mishap, but happened to pass that way; secondly that there was no notice as required by Section 10 or any justification for dispensing with it under Proviso (b); thirdly, that Section 12 of the said Act has been invoked incorrectly, the respondent being himself uncertain as to who his immediate employer was and had given a long list.

(2.) It would be convenient to consider these points ad seriatim.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, Shri Chaphekar has taken me through the entire evidence to show that the respondent was not working on that date in any part of the work in charge of the appellant. He has laid emphasis upon the statement of some of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant. Further, he has pointed out the absence of the respondent's name in the muster roll produced in respect of the section of the work, in which the respondent himself claims to have been employed, and has urged that it was far more likely that the respondent was passing that way, and happening to stop to have a chat with one of the employees, was hit ore the eye by flying piece of stone.