KALI DAS GHOSAL Vs. S K MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case must go back as in my opinion, there has been no proper determination of the issues involved in the case upon a proper consideration of the evidence.

(2.) The appellant Kali Das Ghosal made an application for compensation on the 21st of June, 1954, in respect of injuries said to have been suffered by him by an accident which had taken place on the 18th of August, 1950, while he was in the employment of the respondent and in the course of that employment. The application stated that while the applicant had been on duty as a Watchman at night, his left hand got entangled in two live electric wires as a result of which he received a severe electric shock culminating in a weakening and disfigurement of his left hand, permanent loss of hearing and loss of teeth. According to him, his monthly wages were RS 70 and on that basis he claimed a lump sum payment of Rs. 2,000. That figure was arrived at after giving credit for Rs. 58 which, it was said, had already been paid by the respondent. At the foot of the application there was a note to the effect that the case could not be filed in time, as the applicant had been paid some amount and had then been promised the balance which was to be paid at the time of his discharge.

(3.) In his written statement the respondent denied that any person of the name of Kali Das Ghosal had been in his employment on or about the 18th of August, 1950. He added that one Kali Das Ghosal had served his domestic house-hold as a cook for a short term in a purely casual vacancy and that when a few months later, he had turned up again and asked for employment, he had again been given casual employment as a gardener to raise vegetables for purely domestic consumption in a plot of fallow land situated near his factory premises. As he had been employed merely as a domestic servant and subsequently as a gardener, the appellant, it was contended, could not possibly be a workman as contemplated by the Act, because he had never been employed in the respondent's trade or business. There was no specific denial of the facts alleged in the petition as regards the manner in which the accident was said to have occurred, but in paragraph 5 of his written statement, the respondent set out a series of denials under the letters (a) to (g) by which he broadly denied the existence of every component part or ingredient of the appellant's claim. The defence of limitation was. however, taken in a specific form and it was contended that the cause alleged for the delay in filing the application did not not amount to sufficient cause and, therefore, the application was liable to be thrown out as time-barred.