1. DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VNSGU, SURAT
B.COM,LLB(HONS.)
SEM- 6th
Labour Law- 2
Submitted to :- hetal ma’am
Date :- 04/02/2020.
Presented by :-
Rana vilas
Rana jenish
Vansiya mitraj
3. State Of Kerala vs Khadeeja Beevi on 30 June, 1988
• Fact:-
The applicant's husband Abdul Khadir was a mahout. He
was a Government employee. On 18th July, 1985 he was
attacked and injured by an elephant. He died on 20th July,
1985 as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the course
of and arising out of his employment.
The applicant stated that Abdul Khadir was aged 42 at
the time of his death, and that he was drawing a monthly
wages of Rs. 900/-, She claimed a compensation of Rs.
60,394/- from the opposite parties. The opposite parties
admitted that Abdul Khadir (appellant's husband) was
employed as a mahout in the Forest Department and that he
died on 20th July, 1985 due to the attack of an elephant.
4. Judgment
• The Commissioner held that Abdul Khadir was a workman as
defined in section 2(1)(n) of the Act. He further found that
the injuries caused to Abdul Khadir on 18th July, 1985, which
resulted in his death was in the course of and arising out of
employment. The monthly salary of the deceased was fixed at
Rs. 828/- at the age of 42 years. On this basis, the
compensation was worked at Rs. 59,115/- payable by the 1st
opposite party, D.F.O. Thenmalai.
• The opposite parties have come up in appeal.
5. • Abdul Khadir, being a Government servant, cannot be
considered to be a workman within the meaning of section
2(1)(n) of the Act. We are of the view that this contention is
without substance. section 2(1)(n) of the Act taken along
with Schedule II, item (xxii) states that persons employed in
the training, keeping or working of elephants or wild animals
are workmen within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) of the
Act, In the light of Schedule II, item (xxii), it is futile to contend
that deceased Abdul Khadir was not a workman employed by
the appellants. On this short ground the only plea of the
appellants fails.
• The Commissioner was justified in awarding the
compensation as he did. We see no reason to interfere in this
appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
6. Radhamony And Ors. vs. Secretary, Dept. Of
Home Affairs on 20 October, 1994
• Fact:-
Appellants are the legal representatives of Bhaskaran
Nair, a Driver in the Police Department of the State of Kerala.
The jeep driven by him KLC 2209 met with an accident on
October 24, 1989 and he sustained injuries. He succumbed to
the injuries on October 26, 1989.
Compensation is claimed by the appellants on the ground
that the deceased met with his death while driving the jeep in
the course of his employment under the respondent. The
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, held that the
deceased was not a workman coming within the definition
under section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 and declined to award any compensation.
7. The deceased aged 45 years was getting Rs. 1,656/- as
monthly salary. This is not a matter in dispute. Though the
first appellant (wife of the deceased) had sent a registered
notice to the respondent on February 13, 1990 claiming
compensation, there was no favorable response.
Respondent's contention is that Driver in the Police
Department is not a workman coming within the purview of
the Act and since he had performed only the sovereign
functions of the State in the maintenance of law and order, it
cannot be said that appellants are entitled to any
compensation under the Act.
8. Judgment
For the purpose of quantifying the compensation the
maximum amount that can be taken into consideration is only
Rs. 1,000/- in view of Explanation II to Section 4 even though
the deceased was getting salary of Rs, 1,656/-per month.
The claim would come to Rs. 67,776/-. The claim in the
petition is only for Rs. 66,756/-. Though the claim is for lesser
amount than the amount to which the appellants are entitled
as per the statute, the Commissioner is not precluded from
awarding the compensation as per the Schedule. Section 4 of
the Act requires that the compensation has to be paid in
accordance with the prescription or scale indicated in the
Schedule to the Act.
9. As requirement under the Act is mandatory and as the
Act is a piece of social security legislation, a workman having
found to be entitled to compensation as statutorily fixed
cannot be denied of the same merely on account of
miscalculation or wrong calculation of the compensation
amount by him.
We hold that the appellants are entitled to Rs. 67,776/-
as compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition
viz. April 25, 1990 till realization.
10. The New India Assurance Co. ltd vs.
Mohankumar Sahoo
• Facts : -
Mohan Kumar is the owner of a transportation bus
and he has appointed Bishvanath Mahanta as a driver only
for one day as his regular driver is on leave.
on that day dated 27/12/1992 the bus met with an
accident with a heavy weighted truck and the driver
Bishvanath Mahanta dies on the spot.
here Mohan Kumar Sahoo is the principal employer
and thus the wife of the driver Bishvanath claims
compensation.
11. The claimant claimed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
owner of the vehicle filed his written statement disclosing
therein that the deceased Biswanath Mahanta was employed
by him in his Bus bearing registration No. ORJ- 7401 only for
a day, i.e., 27.12.1992 in absence of his regular driver and he
was paid Rs.70/- for that day as wages including food
charges. On 27.12-1992 the said bus met with an accident
with a truck, ultimately resulting in the death of the
deceased driver.
Mohan Kumar appeals the assurance company to pay
compensation on behalf of him as a third party insurance,
but the company refuses to pay the claim saying that there is
no relationship of any employee - employer.
12. • Issues :-
issues arise in this matter that whether bishwanath be
called as employee under workman compensation act and is
eligible for claims.
• Judgement :-
the court held in the favor of Mohan Kumar Sahoo
and the hon’ble court observed that even if there is no
employer- employee relationship with the principal employer,
a substitute can be a workman if he is engaged for the service
of the principal employer.
13. The court also observed that the owner of the bus has
confessed in written statement that driver bishwanath was
driving his bus which indicated the relationship of employer
and employee between them and thus we can’t removed such
employment as like in this case from the whole scope of
section 2(1)(n) of workman compensation Act,1923.
the court also ordered that the awarded amount.
Rs.60,000/- shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the
claimant for a period of five years and the balance amount
shall be paid to her by way of an account payee cheque.
