LAWS(PAT)-1973-2-18

JASIMADDIN Vs. HAFIZA BIBI AND ANR.

Decided On February 02, 1973
Jasimaddin Appellant
V/S
Hafiza Bibi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Questions which arise for decision in the two appeals are the same and the orders which are subject -matter of appeals are also identical. The Appellant in both the appeals is the same person. Hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Appellant got dug up a well more than 35 feet deep within the compound of his residential house. He was getting the walls of the well plastered. For this purpose he had engaged several masons and laborers. Safizuddin and Sk. Mannan were two of these masons. They were working on wages at the rate of Rs. 4.50 P. per day with food in kind three times a day. After they had continuously worked for 8 days, on 30th of April, 1965, at about 4 p.m. while they were working inside the well at a depth of 35 feet, the earth of the well started collapsing. They raised an alarm for dropping a rope inside the well but that could not be done for want of adequate arrangement. They were buried in the well due to collapse of the earth. When their bodies were ultimately taken out on 2nd of May, 1965, at about 4 p.m. they were found dead. Hafiza Bibi and Khojani Bewa, widows of Safizuddin and Sk. Mannan respectively, made applications before the Commissioner under the Act at Pakur in the district of Santhal Parganas praying that they and their children who were dependent on them may be allowed compensation as contemplated under the Act. The petitions were filed on 13th of September, 1965. The petition of Hafiza Bibi was registered as Workmen's Compensation Case No. 2 of 1965 and that of Khojani Bewa as Workmen's Compensation Case No. 1 of 1965.

(3.) AT the time of the hearing of the petitions the widows denied to have received any compensation and made out a case that the Ekrarnamas were fraudulently obtained. Both parties led evidence in support of their cases.