D P DIVAKAR Vs. CHAIRMAN PERSONAL MANAGING DIRECTOR KUDUREMUKHA IRON AND ORE COMPANY LIMITED KUDUREMUKHA MOODIGERE CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is an appeal, which creates a rather delicate situation for the court and raises, once more a situation whereby the court is required to almost bend over backwards for purposes of moulding a relief within the framework of the law. Though the issue appears to be relatively simple, namely, the question as to whether under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act the heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation in the light of the unusual facts of this case, the time frame itself and the paucity of evidence before the trial court have seriously complicated the matter. The appellant, in the year 1980, was employed as a supervisor with the first respondent-company. At the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 801.80 per month. He was deputed to visit bangalore in connection with some official duties and, in the course of this visit, that too on a sunday, he suddenly died of cardiac arrest. His widow who is the present appellant 1, on her behalf and on behalf of the three minor daughters and one son, filed an application for compensation before the authority constituted under the law. The case made out by her was that her husband was in the prime of his life, that he had absolutely no history of any cardiac ailment or any other serious problems of any kind. It is her case that he was subjected to abnormally high strain and tension in the course of his employment by the company which included the fact that in addition to his work in the office, he had been deputed to bangalore and that the cumulative effect of this was that he suffered an injury, though not of the ordinary type and a visible one, which resulted in his death. To amplify the argument, even though no apparent or visible injury or accident had taken place vis-a-vis the employee, the claimants contended that the term injury should be construed in a wider sense as opposed to the conventional approach and that in the facts of the case, if it can be justifiably demonstrated that in the course of employment, the heart of the deceased had sustained an injury which resulted in his death, that compensation is still awardable. The authority concerned dismissed the application principally on two grounds, the first one being that the ACT would not apply, because due to a subsequent revision of salary which took place about approximately two years after the death of the appellant's husband, some revision in the pay scales was given effect to, as a result of which, as a notional correction, the salary of the deceased was deemed to have been revised to over Rs. 1,000/-. On this being pointed out, the learned trial judge held that the provisions of the ACT would not apply to this case. The second ground on which the application was dismissed was that even assuming the ACT was applicable, the deceased had died at bangalore while he was on a visit there on a sunday and the learned trial judge held that it could never be construed, that whatever happened at bangalore can be termed as being either in the course of or arising out of his employment. The application was accordingly dismissed. The present appeal is directed against that order.

(2.) appellants' learned Advocate in the course of hissub missions, contended that the first ground on which the appellant was non-suited is clearly erroneous. It is his case that the records clearly indicated the salary of the deceased as being Rs. 801.80/- as on the date of his death. He submits that it would almost be carrying the proposition to a position of absurdity if one were to take cognizance of any subsequent revision of the salary that has taken place after the death has occurred and that at the highest, this can be treated as a paper or a book adjustment on payment of arrears. What the law contemplates is the status of the person as on the date of the incident and he submits that in so far as the salary as on the date of the incident was below Rs. 1,000/-, that the application was clearly maintainable. Some justification is put forward as regards the view taken by the trial court, because the respondents' learned Advocate submitted that even though his basic defence is with regard to the second aspect of the case, that from a strictly legalistic angle, the learned trial judge cannot be faulted in so far as retrospective application was given to the salary scale and therefore, the salary stood automatically altered to a figure over Rs. 1,000/- by virtue of this sitaution. He subsmited that therefore, the court shold not ignore this change and that no interference could be called for with the finding in question

(3.) the position in law is abundantly clear in so far as the court has to take cognizance of the situation as it obtained on the date when the cause of action arose. Any subsequent revisions cannot be taken into account for purposes of conferring or depriving the trial court of jurisdiction on the basis of the salary slab. This is a case in which the salary was increased by virtue of a revision, but there could also be numerous cases in which for a variety of reasons such as a disciplinary proceeding, a salary may get reduced and if such a situation occurs, it can never be argued that the person who would normally be categorised as a workman, has suddenly ceased to be one only because of such a financial adjustment. The submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant is perfectly correct, valid and justified and to my mind, the learned trial judge ought to have ignored any subsequent revision, more so when it has taken place after the death of the employee concerned. The position in law is that for purposes of the cause of action and for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction, the salary level stood frozen as on the date when the cause of action occurred and if that test were to be applied, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to entertain the application.