FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SUBHAN PADHIAR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an award dated 25th of January 2003 passed by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Jammu - Commissioner under the Workmen 'sCompensation Act(for short the
Commissioner) in a claim petition under the Workmen 'sCompensation Act File No.
10/WCA/99 dated 8.2.1999 titled Subhan Padhiar V/s. Food Corporation of India.
(2.) THE respondent Subhan Padhiar filed a claim petition under the Workmen 'sCompensation Act (for short the Act) against the Food Corporation of India (the Appellant) and its Regional
Manager claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ - with interest as compensation from the said
Corporation. The respondent 'scase before the Commissioner was that he was working as
labour with the Corporation and was registered as such by the Corporation on 7th of October,
1987 under Registration No. 107. The respondent was working al -ongwith other labourers in the Food Corporation of India Depot Railway Head, Jammu. He was doing the job of loading and
unloading the materials which was being transported through trains at Railways Station, Jammu.
The wages, according to the respondent were being paid by the Corporation periodically. On 12th
of June 1990 while in the course of employment he was hit by a railway engine. Due to this
accident, the respondent got seriously injured and was admitted in the Government Medical
College Hospital, Jammu on that very day. He remained admitted in the Hospital upto 15th of July
1990. He was admitted as a case of traumatic amputation and his right lower limb above knee and right upper limb below elbow was amputated. An FIR was also lodged in this behalf, a copy of
which was placed by the respondent on the file. Since the injury, according to the respondent, had
occurred in the course of employment, the respondent claimed compensation from the Corporation
and in this behalf submitted various applications even to the Governor of the State. The
Corporation was requested even by the State authorities to pay compensation to the respondent
but since no action was taken by the Corporation the respondent filed the said claim petition
before the Commissioner.
The Commissioner on consideration of the matter found that it was established by the evidence on record that the respondent was engaged by the Corporation and that he was working as a
labourer for loading and unloading the material under Registration No. 107 of 1987. The
Commissioner further found that on 12th of June 1990, while the respondent was working during
and in the course of employment of the Corporation, he got injured as he was hit by a Railway
engine. Due to the said accident, his right lower limb above knee and upper limb below elbow was
amputated. Since the respondent had suffered 100% disability, the Commissioner found him
entitled to a compensation of Rs. 81,540/ - under Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule -4
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual deposit of
compensation in favour of the respondent.
(3.) AGGRIEVED of the said order of the Commissioner, the Food Corporation of India has through its Managing Director filed the present appeal on various grounds inter alia that the Commissioner
has not properly appreciated the objections raised by the Corporation before it. According to the
appellants, the claim petition was filed by the respondent after a delay of nine years of the
accident so the same was under the provisions of the Act time barred. It is further alleged that the
Commissioner has adjudged the respondent as a worker of the Corporation while as there is no
evidence on record to establish this fact. According to the appellants they had categorically denied
the employment of the respondent under them at any point of time but the Commissioner has
without looking for the evidence in this behalf, returned a finding that the accident had taken place
during and in the course of the employment of the appellants. Appellants have further stated that
there were glaring contradictions even in the facts alleged by the respondent in the claim petition
before the Commissioner. The liability, according to the respondent, under the Act arises only when
a workman is injured in the accident arising out and in the course of the employment. This fact has
to be proved by the claimant from his evidence while as in the present case the respondent says
he was going to depot and the Train engine came from behind and hit him on the relevant date,
his witness states that respondent came out of furiation and met with an accident with an engine
which alone was moving on track. Thus there being a variance in the claim made by the
respondent and the evidence produced, the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the
evidence and has wrongly burdened the appellants with the compensation as directed by the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.