CHILLU KAHAR Vs. BURN AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question under the Workmen's Compensation Act on which, I confess, I have not found it easy to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

(2.) The appellant, Chillu Kahar, was a workman under the respondents, Messrs. Burn and Company Limited, but in what exact capacity he was employed is not clear. The respondents alleged that he was a hammerman, but the appellant denied that allegation, although subsequently he appears to have admitted it. His positive case, however, is that his duty was to "join iron into the furnace and to take it out on opening the door of the furnace'.' The respondents' case that he was a hammerman and worked at some distance from the furnace probably means that his duty was to beat heated pieces of iron and steel into shape. It may well have been that the appellant was a hammerman, but he was himself required to throw into the fire and draw out the pieces of iron and steel which he was required to beat up. Unfortunately, there is no clear find- ing on the matter and the learned Commissioner does not seem to have realised the necessity of arriving at a clear finding.

(3.) Be that as it may, the appellant's case is that the duties of his job were such that his eyes were exposed to the glare of the furnace and during the twenty years that he had served the respondents, that exposure had slowly impaired his eyesight till a crisis came on 9-3-1950, when there was a sudden flash which completely blinded him in both of his eyes. It was on the footing of such continuous exposure to high light and the particularly intense flash on 9-3-1950, with the effect of completely blinding him, that the appellant based his claim for compensation.