PARESH CHANDRA GANGULY Vs. JAWAHIR PRESS CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one Paresh Chandra Ganguli wno claimed compensation originally from Jawahir Press and subsequently, by an amendment of the application, irom Nandilal Jain, proprietor of the said Press. There was another amendment in that the claim made by the petition was for a half monthly payment of Rs. 30/- which was subsequently altered, to a claim for a lump sum payment. These amendments were allowed by the learned Judge in the absence of the opposite party, but no point is sought to be made out of his omission to issue the necessary notice.

(2.) The appellant's case was that he was employed as a machine-man under the opposite party and that when so employed, he contracted the occupational disease of lead poisoning, The allegation was denied by the opposite party whose case appears to have been that the machine which the appellant had to handle was not made of lead and therefore there could be no occasion for his contracting lead poisoning because of his occupation under the opposite party.

(3.) One of the questions in such circumstances relevant to Section 10 of the Act would be the date when the accident was caused which would mean the date on which the appellant was first absent from duty, if he was absent continuously for a succession of days. The learned Judge has pointed out that there is no evidence so far as that point is concerned, but he has principally thrown out the appellant's, application on the ground that (a) he had not made out that he was employed on premises where 10 or more persons had been employed during the preceding 12 months and (b) that he had not established that the condition of his body had been caused by employment under the opposite party.