GANESH FOUNDRY WORKS Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULBHUSHAN Kumar was a regular employee of Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Ltd. , Phagwara, where he was drawing Rs. 173 per month as his salary. On 19th February, 1977, he came back to his residence after his duty was over at 9. 00 a. m. At about 10. 30 a. m. he was summoned by Ganesh Foundry Works to cure some defect in their factory premises. He went there and while he was doing the required job, he received injury resulting in the amputation of one leg and due to that injury, he subsequently died. His heirs filed an application for the grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called the Act ). Therein it was stated that his normal wages were Rs. 173 per month and he used to earn Rs. 7 to Rs. 10 daily for doing extra work. Ganesh Foundry Works and Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Ltd. were impleaded as respondents. Both the respondents contested the petition. Ganesh Foundry Works pleaded that the deceased was doing job work at his shop in spare time and on 19th February, 1977, he was called to remove some electric defect in their factory for which Rs. 25 were settled. However, the receipt of injury and death while working there was admitted, although the blame was put on the deceased that without informing the management he had come to do the work, thus the concerned person could not stop the working of the shaft, and, therefore, pleaded that it was on account, of the deceased's own negligence and carelessness that he met with the accident. The other concern admitted that in their factory the deceased was working as a laboratory worker and was getting Rs. 173 per month. They pleaded that he did not die while working in their factory and that they did not know that he knew the electric work as well. While the second concern disowned the liability because he did not die while working in their factory, the first concern pleaded that he was not their employee and, therefore, the Act was not applicable. The Court below, by order dated 5th February, 1979, held that the deceased was to be considered as a workman of Ganesh Foundry Works and his heirs were entitled to compensation. While assessing compensation, his pay was considered as Rs. 173 per month and since he also used to do repair work in extra time, it was concluded that his monthly income was between Rs. 200 and Rs. 300 and on this basis Rs. 18,000 were awarded to him. Ganesh Foundry Works have come to this Court in this appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) SHRI N. K. Sodhi, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has raised two fundamental points:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on the aforesaid two points, I am of the considered view that the first deserves to be decided against the appellant whereas the second point deserves to be decided in its favour.