CHAITRAM Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the workman's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated 30th April, 1984, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Bilaspur. M. P. , in Case No. 27 of 1982 W. C. A. (E. F.), rejecting the appellant's claim for compensation on account of injury sustained by him, during the course of employment on 11th March, 1981.

(2.) THAT the appellant was working as a labourer at Birri Dolomite Mines of the respondent on 11th March, 1981 and suffered injury on his left eye during the course of employment is now not in dispute. It appears that while the appellant was breaking Dolomite stone for cleaning the surface of the mine, a flying chip of the mineral struck his left eye and got stuck in his pupil. According to the appellant, since it was an employment injury resulting in 30% loss of his physical and earning capacity, he was entitled to compensation for the same. The defence of the respondent was that the appellant had been issued goggles, a safety equipment and was obliged to wear the same while on duty. They also relied upon standing instructions and rules that require employees to wear goggles while working. He did not use the same and suffered the injury. The respondent, therefore, claimed that the appellant because of the aforesaid disregard of standing instructions and the rules was not entitled to any compensation. The respondent further submitted that the appellant at the time he sustained the injury was not working but was resting near the work place. This, according to them, was the negligent act of the appellant disentitling him to any compensation. The learned Commissioner, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the appellant sustained injury while working and not while resting. The learned Commissioner was of the view that the appellant was not wearing goggles while working and was, therefore, guilty of 'wilful negligence 'of instructions. Ex. D-1 to D-3 disentitles him to relief under Section 3 (1) proviso (b) (ii) of the Act. That is how the appellant's claim was dismissed and hence this appeal.

(3.) APPELLANT Chaitram, in his statement on oath, has admitted that he had been issued goggles by the respondents to be used while working. According to him, the goggles are made in a manner that workers cleaning the surface are not able to properly see the surface while wearing it. They are therefore compelled to remove it while cleaning the surface. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not report this defect in the goggles to any one. He insisted that he had removed the goggles because he was finding it difficult to properly see and work while wearing it. Cheti Bai (P. W. 2) is another labourer of the gang and has corroborated his evidence. According to her, it is not possible to see properly through the goggles and, therefore, they have to work after removing them. In her cross-examination, she stated that goggles have double glasses and, therefore, it is difficult to see properly at a near distance. She further stated that she had made several representations in writing to the authorities but without any result. As against this, Shri R. K. Som (D. W. 1) has only deposed that the respondents nave issued notices ex. D/1, D-2 and D-3 requiring the workers to use goggles while working. According to him, it has been clarified that, in case the workers worked without goggles and suffered injuries, the management will not be responsible. He has not stated anything about the types of goggles and the difficulty in properly seeing through them as stated by the appellant and Cheti Bai. It would, therefore, appear that the statement of the appellant and Cheti Bai about the difficulty in properly seeing through the goggles has remained uncontradicted. In spite of it, it is clear that the appellant had been issued goggles to be used while working and was not wearing the same at the time when the accident took place, causing injury to his left eye. Question for consideration is whether provisions of Section 3 (1) Proviso (b) (ii) of the Act are attracted in such a situation.