ROHTAS INDUSTRIES Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been bled by the employer of one Jagarnath Mistry, who had met with an accident on the 26th Sept., 1960. Jagarnath Mistry was employed by the appellant in the Central Power House, Dalmianagar and he was an insured employee. On the 26th Sept., 1960 he was asked to repair a belt conveyor in Pit No. 8 of the Central Power House as the belt was not running smoothly and was getting jammed. While engaged in repairing this belt conveyor the employee had received serious injuries. It was alleged that the accident was caused on account of failure of the appellant to provide safety guard on the nip side of the roll as required under Sec. 21 of the Factories Act, 1943 (Act No. LXIII of 1948). After the accident, the Manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, respondent No. 1, had reported that the accident was caused on account of this failure to provide safety guard and in due course, the injured man was paid by The Corporation under the terms of the insurance scheme. Thereafter, notice was issued to the appellant for reimbursing the Corporation under the law and an amount of Rs. 1763.43 paise was claimed. As the employer had failed to comply with this demand, the Insurance Corporation filed an application under Sec. 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1918 (Act No. XXXIV of 1948), out of which the present case has arisen. By the order under appeal, the learned District Judge has allowed the application and the employer has been asked to pay.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned Advocate General, I would state the facts found by the learned District Judge. It has been held that the employer's contention that the accident had been caused by the negligence and mindfulness of the injured man was unacceptable. It has been held that the safety guard on the nip side of the roll had not been provided by the employer and, therefore, the accident to the employee was caused on account of negligence and violation of the provisions of law on the part of the employer and not on account of any negligence on the part of the employee. The learned District Judge has stated in paragraph 7 of this order that it was admitted that the safety guards were necessary and failure to provide them would amount to negligence on the part of the employer who would thereby be liable. This conclusion has been arrived at obviously on The evidence given by the only witness examined on behalf of the employer, namely Sri S.P. Mathur, who stated that guards were essential and if no guards were provided at all, that would be negligence on the part of the employer, who would thereby be liable. The learned Advocate General has contended that the implications of the proviso to Sec. 21 of the Factories Act have gone unnoticed and thereby a substantial question of law has arisen. The proviso relied upon runs thus :

(3.) In the circumstances, the appeal is bound to fail and it is dismissed with costs payable to respondent No. 1 only. Appeal dismissed.