RANDHIR SINGH Vs. KIMTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the first respondent in a case filed under the Workmen Compensation Act by the representatives of the deceased-workman under the first respondent. The electricity board and the functionaries were also co-respondents before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The case had been led on a contention that the deceased workman received an electricity shock when he climbed up the pole to attend to some work. The contention of the first respondent who is appellant before this Court was that the work was to be carried out only by the officials of the Electricity Board for some defect and the deceased himself was not authorized to do the said work. According to the appellant, he had gone away from that place to fetch some article and at that time the deceased climbed up the pole on the instructions of the staff of electricity board and received an electric shock and died. According to him, therefore, the liability shall be only on the staff of the Electricity Board and vicariously on the electricity board for giving some instructions to the deceased which caused ultimately the fatal accident. Under the Workmen Compensation Act, the two essential ingredients that have to be satisfied in order to prosecute the claim are i) he shall be a 'workman' at the relevant time when the accident took place. ii) the accident must have been in the course of and out of employment. If the deceased's status as a workman was admitted as a person who had a share of crops since the date he had taken the land under the first respondent, for cultivation at the latter's behest, he verily becomes a workman. It is also an admitted fact that the accident took place only when the defect in an electrical installation was sought to be rectified in the course of his employment. The deceased did not act directly under the employer and that he was at the relevant time carrying out some instructions of the electricity board staff it cannot alter the situation. Section 3 of Workmen Compensation Act which refers to employer's liability for compensation refers to exceptions under clause (1)(b) of an injury resulting in willful disregard of any safety guard or device or instructions or disobedience of any express instructions given by the employer would apply only for an accident not resulting in death. If the accident ultimately results in death, the fact that the act was not authorized cannot be a defence for an employer. Even the fact that he was carrying on instructions of somebody else is not relevant if the act itself was in relation to the employer's field of activity during the course of his employment. The liability cast on the first respondent who is the appellant herein cannot therefore be faulted at all.

(2.) Learned counsel would further make an argument that the liability if at all could only be apportioned amongst the respondents themselves and could not have been wholly cast on the appellant. This argument is without merit, for, if the workman had been a workman under him, the fact that the workman died while carrying out the instructions which were unauthorized cannot avail to the first respondent-appellant to contend that there must have been no apportionment of liability. On the other hand, if he is damnified by any express instructions which were unauthorized and by the negligence of the electricity board staff, the appellant can seek for his own remedy on appropriate proof of the negligent act of the electricity board staff in independent proceedings and this cannot come in the way of a workman for his own claim for compensation against his employer, the workman or his representation for pursuing the remedy under the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant further states that after the incident a substantial amount was also given to the claimants under a compromise. There can be no compromise under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act other than through the provisions provided under Workman Compensation Act. Section 28 and 29 are a complete answer to the appellant's case. For any agreement or settlement by an employer it would require to be made and registered with the Commissioner in the manner contemplated under Section 28. Section 29 states that any agreement which is not registered in the manner contemplated with the Commissioner cannot be enforced. There is no point of law involved in the appeal to be answered in favour of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.