- (1.) APPELLANT Shiv Lal filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the Act) on the ground that while working as a work charge T. Mate under T. L. S. C. Sub-Division, 5 Punjab State Electricity Board, he amputated his left hand thumb and the index ringer while unloading a machine on 30 April 1985, in the course of his employment with T. L. S. C. Sub-Division. The application was rejected on the solitary ground that the claimant had failed to prove that he received injuries in the course of his employment with the respondents.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has taken exception to the finding recorded by the learned trial judge under issue (1) It was held that the appellant had failed to prove that the injury was sustained by him while on duty. The learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on the testimony of A. W. 3, Sri Harbhajan Singh, I. E. , T. L. S. C. Sub-Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. In examinationin-chief, he stated as under:- "on 30 April 1985, I was posted as J. E. in T. L. S. C. Division at Malerkotla, again said, I was posted at Patiala but our work was going on in Malerkotla area. I know Shiv Lal, petitioner, and he was working there as work-charge. He was unloading the welding set from a truck and during that course, his thumb of left hand was amputated. He was removed to hospital by me and he remained there" In cross examination the only relevant question which was put to him was whether the appellant was on leave on 30 April 1985, and the witness replied. "i cannot say that the applicant was on leave or on duty on 30 April 1985. " This statement in cross-examination does not nullify the statement of the witness made in exami-nation-in-chief. He was categoric that on 30 April 1985, Shiv Lal unloading the welding set from the truck and in the process his thumb of left hand was amputated. There is nothing to discredit the testimony of this witness. The other evidence brought on record that the claimant was on leave with effect from 30th April 1985 to 8 May 1985, cannot render any assistance to the respondents. It is just possible that after the accident the appellant proceeded on leave since he was hospitalised. There is no positive evidence that the witness was not on duty on 30 April 1985, on the date when the accident took place. The respondents could not prove by positive evidence that the appellant did not join duty on the date of accident. To the contrary the testimony of A. W. 3, Harbhajan Singh, who is a responsible official, positively establishes that the claimant was on duty and the injury was suffered during the course of his duty. The finding recorded on issue (1) by the learned trial Judge is reversed and it is held that the appellant received the injury while on duty and in the course of his employment with the respondents.
(3.) UNDER issue (2), the learned trial Judge has given a positive finding that the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs. 665 per month as workcharge.;