STEEMAN COMPANY Vs. NARKO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a case of battle between a pygmy and a giant -between a poor woman labourer earning Rs. 2.75 per day and the mighty contractors. The latter have all the resources in terms of money to get the best brains whereas the poor starving labourer has just to depend on her luck. I had tried to pursuade the contractors to fight only the legal battle and, irrespective of its result, not to insist on the worker paying back the pittance she has been awarded. I had even adjourned the matter to enable she counsel to get instructions. But all in vain. The contractors apparently do not believe in mercy to the poor. They insist on their pound of flesh.

(2.) The case has arisen out of circumstances which are very common during any big construction work. The contractors had landed a contract for building a bridge. Narko Devi was employed by the contractors for breaking stones. She was being paid Rs. 2.75 per day. At the site, amongst others, there was a cement concrete mixer. At a distance of about 20 yards from it, according to the appellants contractors, this labourer was required to work, on 11th June, 1970, during the course of work she got up from her place to fetch an empty bag lying near the mixer. To her bad luck, as she came near the mixer the mixed cement concrete fell from the mixer on her leg. The result was a fracture. She was treated in a hospital. After she was cured it was found that her leg had become short by two inches. The doctor opined that she had suffered disability of 50%. The find certificate from the doctor was obtained on 23rd December, 1970 and application under section 10(1) read with section 4(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 was made on 6th April, 1971. The medical certificate was annexed to this application. Notice was issued to the appellants which was served on 8th April, 1971 on Mr. V. K. Vig. Notice was for 20th April, 1971. On that day Mr. Vig. appeared and the date of hering was fixed for 23rd April, 1971 at 10 A. M. It may be noticed that on 20th April, 1971 the contractors did not file any written statement.

(3.) On 23rd April, 1971 written statement was filed by the contractors. Liability was denied on the ground that (1) Narko Devi was a casual labourer and so was not a workman5, and (2) the labourer had disobeyed the instructions not to move from the place of her work. In these circumstances it was averred that "the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment and because of the clear obedience (disobedience?) of the instructions of the non applicant". On that very day the statement of the injured workman was recorded. She gave the facts and inter alia stated that because of the accident to her leg it was not possible for her to work any more. The award was announced the same day. An amount of Rs. 4,200/ -was awarded to her.