BECHARAM MALLIK Vs. KHAS JOYRAMPUR COLLIERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Dhanbad, referring a question of law for the decision of this Court under Section 27, Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923). The facts giving rise to this reference can be shortly stated as follows : One Becharam Mallik was employed as a coal-miner at the Khas Joyrampur Colliery. Becharam Mallik lived in village Sarsakuli, which was at a distance of 22 or 23 miles from the colliery. Fifteen miles of this distance, however, was over a good motorable road, and the owners of the colliery provided a motor omnibus to transport their workmen to and from places situate along this motorable road. On 27 December 1938 Becharam Mallik was travelling in the motor bus going to his work at the colliery when he met with an accident. The learned Commissioner does not state the nature of the accident, but he says that the workman sustained severe injuries on his face and lips and was detained in hospital for 15 or 16 days as an indoor patient.

(2.) The workman claimed compensation from his employers for the period during which he was incapacitated from working. The learned Commissioner has found upon the evidence in the case that there was no written agreement between the workman and the employers whereby the latter were under any obligation to provide motor omnibuses. The learned Commissioner, however, was satisfied that there was an implied agreement that the colliery should provide omnibuses for the miners to take them to and from their homes. The learned Commissioner, however, states quite clearly that there was no obligation on the part of the miners to travel by the omnibus provided and that they were free to come to the colliery to work by whatever means they chose. He however, adds that, the motor omnibus provided by the colliery was the only reasonable and feasible means-of transport available to the workers.

(3.) The learned Commissioner was faced with a number of English decisions, and if these are followed there can be no question that the workman is not entitled to compensation. The learned Commissioner, however, thought that as circumstances were somewhat different in India these English cases should not be made applicable in India. The Commissioner rightly points out that colliery workmen in India are frequently very ignorant and illiterate people and are such that they cannot appreciate their legal rights. In the Commissioner's view it was most unlikely that Becharam Mallik had any idea that he was not bound by the terms of his contract to ride upon this omnibus.