The Management of Injipara EstateValparai P.O.Valparai v. ThyilammalW/o.Late Arjunan(P.F.No.3266-NC Division)Injipara EstateValparai PO 642 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-01-2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHIC.M.A.No.720 of 2001The Management of Injipara EstateValparai P.O.Valparai. ...Appellant -Vs-ThyilammalW/o.Late Arjunan(P.F.No.3266-NC Division)Injipara EstateValparai PO 642 127. ...Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed U/s. 16-E(2) ofPlantations Labour Act 1951 r/w. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act,against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour(Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, dated21.08.2000 in W.C.No. 135 of 1999. For Appellant ::Mr.John Zachariah forM/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.For Respondent ::Mr.S.N.Ravichandran JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the Order of Deputy Commissioner of Labourawarding compensation of Rs.1,05,377/- to the Respondent/Claimantfor the death of her husband Arjunan, the Management has preferredthis Appeal.2.The Respondent's husband Arjunan, a Worker bearing Roll No.4407 of N.C.Division of Injiparai Estate, Valparai, was employed bythe Applicant-Management. The case of the Respondent/Claimant isthat her husband Arjunan along with others were sleeping at theresidential quarters allotted by the Management of InjiparaiEstate. In the midnight between 29.12.1998 and 30.12.1998 the backdoor was loudly knocked and when the back door was opened, he sawfew wild Elephants standing there. The deceased Arjunan had loudlycalled others and at that time, the Elephant got wild and are said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to have thrown a water pot with water and attacked the deceasedArjunan. The deceased Arjunan is said to have sustained injurieson his forehead and he fell down and he became unconscious. Whenthe Pharmacist checked Arjunan, he was declared dead. Stating thatArjunan died during the course of his employment and that theRespondent/Claimant is entitled to compensation as per amendedSection 16-A and 16-B of Plantations Labour Act, the wife of thedeceased Arjunan has filed the Application claiming compensationof Rs.1,31,350/-. 3. The Appellant-Management contested the Applicationcontending that the Arjunan died of heart attack in his houseallotted by the Management and the same was reported to the EstatePharmacist as per the existing practice and it was never reportedthat Arjunan was attacked by the wild Elephant. Arjunan was aged60 years and that he was about to get superannuation on 31.12.1998.As such, there was no collapse of the door or roof of the house andtherefore, the Claimant is not entitled to claim compensation underSection 16-A(1) of Plantations Labour Act.4.Accepting the evidence of the Respondent/Claimant, thelearned Deputy Commissioner has held that the accident arose out ofand during the course of employment. Fixing the monthly wages ofArjunan at Rs.1,778/-, the learned Deputy Commissioner has orderedcompensation at Rs.1,05,377/-. 5. The C.M.A. was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law :i.Whether the Application for compensation filed by theRespondent was maintainable in terms of Section 3 ofWorkmen's Compensation Act ?ii.Was the death of the Respondent's husband due to accidentarising out of and in the course of his employment under theAppellant ?iii.Is the claim of the Respondent maintainable under Section16-A of the Plantations Labour Act ? 6. Laying emphasis upon the expression "arising out of and inthe course of his employment" under Sec. 3 of Workmen'sCompensation Act, the learned counsel for the Appellant-ManagementMr.John Zachariah has contended that the accident occurred on themidnight of 29.12.1998 cannot be construed as arising out of andin the course of his employment. Drawing the attention of theCourt to the alleged letters given by the wife and son of deceasedWorkman Arjunan, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Managementhas submitted that mere dying of heart attack would not besufficient to bring the accident within the purview of Sec. 3 ofthe Act. The learned Counsel has further submitted that thedeceased workman cannot be construed as a workman within the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ meaning of Sec. 2(h) of Plantations Labour Act. Contending thatmere dying of heart attack unless proved to be arising out ofstress and strain no compensation could be awarded the learnedcounsel for the Appellant-Management has placed reliance upon thedecisions reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (JyothiAdemma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore) and 2007 LLR 185 (ShakuntalaChandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr.). 7. Countering the arguments the learned counsel for theRespondent Mr. S.N.Ravichandran has submitted that the death wasdue to shock as a result of seeing the Elephant, which isincidental to the Employment and the Deputy Commissioner of Labourhas rightly awarded the compensation. The learned counsel for theRespondent has further submitted that on the basis of evidence ofP.W.2, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly awarded the compensationand the same does not suffer from any infirmity warrantinginterference. 8. I have carefully examined the materials on record and therival contentions. The Claimant's husband Arjunan was admittedlyemployed in Injipara Estate and residing in the Quarters inInjipara Estate. Admittedly, late Arjunan was residing within theEstate. He was employed for the purpose of Plantation Work. Hewas due to retire on superannuation on 30.12.1998. In herevidence, P.W.1 has categorically stated that on the fateful day,there was a wild knock at the back door of the house and on openingof the door, they have found that the house was surrounded by wildElephants. When the deceased Arjunan and the inmates of the housetried to come out of the house, one Elephant thrashed the water potand hit against the forehead of the deceased worker Arjunan, dueto which, he died of shock. 9. Contending that the accident was on the midnight of29.12.1998, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Management hascontended that the expression "arising out of and in the course ofhis employment" cannot be extended to its illogical ends so as tocover the accident on the midnight of 29.12.1998. This contentiondoes not merit acceptance. 10. In various cases of the Supreme Court and High Courts,there has been a good deal of discussion on the meaning of"Phrases" - "arising out of and in the course of his employment"appearing in Sec. 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act. The significantprinciples are as follows:(1)There must be connection (casual) between injury and theaccident and the work done in the course of employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2)The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the workand the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravatedthe injury.(3)It is not necessary that the workman must be actuallyworking at the time of death.(4)If it satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributedto the causing of the personnel injury it would be enoughfor the workman to succeed . 11. Whether or not the accident arising in the course ofemployment would depend upon the facts and circumstances of eachcase. In the present case, staying in the residential quarters ofthe Estate is an incident of employment as Plantation Worker. Thealleged accident has occurred on the midnight only on account ofthe workman staying in the Estate quarters, which is an incidentalto employment. Since, the alleged accident is on the midnight of29.12.1998, while the deceased worker was staying in theresidential quarters, the learned Deputy Commissioner for Labourhas rightly held that the accident arose out of and in the courseof his employment. 12. Contending that the expression "arising out of and in thecourse of his employment" cannot be extended to its illogicalends, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Management has placedreliance upon (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (Jyothi Ademma v.Plant Engineer, Nellore) and 2007 LLR 185 (Shakuntala ChandrakantShreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr.). In the first case,the workman was employed in Nellore Thermal Station and his job wasto "switch on or off". Observing that there was no scope for anystress or strain in his duties and therefore, the death of workmandue to heart attack at the work spot cannot be said to have beencaused by any accident arising out of and in the course of hisemployment, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with theJudgment of the High Court, which has negatived the claim forcompensation. In the second case while travelling in Vehicle, whichbelonged to the Management, in which he was working as a Cleanerthe Worker suddenly developed chest pain and was admitted inhospital, where he was declared dead. Observing that the accidenthad taken place during the course of employment has to beestablished and that the failure of heart was because of stress andstrain of work has to be established, the Supreme Court declined tointerfere with the judgment of High Court. The factual situation inthe present case stands entirely on different footing. Thedeceased workman happened to confront the Elephant, while he wasstaying in the residential quarters in the Estate, which he hasoccupied in his capacity as Plantation Worker. The accident isdirect result of the employment and certainly arising in the courseof his employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The question is, whether the Deputy Commissioner wasjustified in holding that the accident occurred and the workmandied during notional extension of employment. The deceased Arjunanwas sleeping in the house allotted to him by the Management. TheArjunan happened to be in the residential quarters in his capacityas Plantation Labour. Hence, there is a casual connection betweenthe employment and the death that could certainly be construed tobe an accident arising out of and in the course of his employmentand the Respondent/Claimant being Legal Heir is entitled to claimcompensation. 14. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Management nextlycontended that the Petition has been filed U/s. 16-A and 16-C ofPlantations Labour Act, whereas, the Deputy Commissioner of Labourhas retracted from the contents in the Petition and has erroneouslyawarded the Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. It isof course true that the Application has been filed U/s. 16-A and16-C of Plantations Labour Act. But, the wrong quoting of Provisionis not a ground for rejecting the claim for compensation. Certainlatitude has to be given to such pleadings/Applications filed onbehalf of the Workers either due to wrong advise or under wrongexpression. The Application might had been filed U/s. 16-A and 16-C of Plantations Labour Act. The learned Deputy Commissioner wasright in awarding the compensation under the Workmen's CompensationAct. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious error oflaw or infirmity warranting interference. This Appeal is devoid ofmerits and is bound to fail. 15. In the result, the Order of the Deputy Commissioner ofLabour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, dated21.08.2000 in W.C.No. 135 of 1999 is confirmed and the C.M.A. isdismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there is noorder as to costs. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour shalldisburse the amount along with the accrued interest on necessaryApplication being made by the Respondent/Claimant. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Paa02.01.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour(Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation)Coimbatore. 2. The Section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Madras1 cc to M/s. T.S. Gopalan, Co. Sr. 1051 cc to Mr.S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr. 75 C.M.A.No. 720 of 2001VRK (CO)kk 9/1