ASHOK GANGARAM KATKAR Vs. PRAMA INDUSTRIES PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the decision rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 24th May 1969 rejecting an application filed by the appellant for compensation on account of an injured alleged to have been sustained in the course of employment. The Appellant was engaged by the respondent in 1984. As would be noted in greater detail hereinafter, no letter of appointment or specific designation was given to the Appellant. The muster roll which was produced before the Trial court in the course of the evidence, specifically leaves the nature of work and designation blank. According to the Appellant, ha was working as a helper since 1984 and was earning an amount of rs. 10/- per day as wages. On 20th October 1985, the Appellant was on duty at 9 a. m. and was working on a Power cutting machine. An accident occurred during the course of which, the fingers on the hand of the Appellant got cut in the machine. The Appellant lost three fingers of his left hand and one finger on his right hand. He was thereafter, taken for medical treatment to the harjeevan Hospital at Pune where he was admitted between 26th October 1985 and 29th October 1985. The medical certificate was that the fingers on both the hands had to be amputated under general anesthesia. A medical certificate was issued by the Sassoon General Hospital at Pune on 13th november 1987 certifying that the Appellant has suffered traumatic amputation of distant two phalanges of the second, third and fourth fingers as a result of which he was unfit for performing the job of a helper. On 9th January 1986, the appellant complained to the Fore Inspector that he had not received any compensation for the injury and he thereafter lodged a claim for compensation on 13th March 1987 before the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation.

(2.) THE Respondent filed its Written Statement denying its liability to pay any amount on account of the injury sustained by the Appellant. In its written statement, the Respondent came out with the case that the Appellant was not a helper, but that he was only engaged as a trainee or as an apprentice and on 1st August 1985 he was only a learner. According to the employer, the Appellant suffered from constant perspiration and was, therefore, unable to properly lift any object. Hence it was stated that the Appellant was orally warned not to perform any task on the machine without permission since he was in the habit of doing so. The defence of the Respondent was that it was the Appellant who had started the cutting machine and tried to cut a sheet without any specific direction and that his left hand slipped accidentally due to perspiration.

(3.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation accepted the defence of the employer and dismissed the claim by a judgment and dated 24th May 1989. The Commissioner was of the view that the evidence of the employer had to be accepted and that it was corroborated by the evidence of another workman. The Court was of the view that a prudent employer would not ask a helper to do any job on a machine which required expertise and that it appeared that the Appellant had worked on the machine overlooking the directions given to him. It is this finding of the Commissioner which is called into question in these proceedings.