The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4708 of 2023 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its General Manager (Legal) Sri Partha Bhattacharjee, aged about 59 years, son of Late P.C. Bhattacharjee, residing at 34, Pragati Enclave, Dibdih, PO- Doranda, PS- Doranda, District - Ranchi - 834002 (Jharkhand) who is also representing the other petitioner. 2. Personnel Officer, K.D.H. Project, N.K. Area, Central Coalfields Limited, PO- Dakra, PS- Khalari, District – Ranchi Petitioners (Jharkhand) … … Versus Panwa Devi, W/o, Late Fuldev Ganjhu, aged about 34 yrs, R/o. Qr. No.104, KDH Mines Colony, PO- Dakra, PS- Khalari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 829205 … … Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
--- : Ms. Swati Shalini, AC to Mr. A.K. Das, Adv. : None --- 13/09.12.2024 This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “That by way of this writ petition, the petitioners pray for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure 5) passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No.01 of 2020, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to allow the application for amendment filed by the respondent on 12.10.2022 and permitted the respondent to amend the claim application.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notice issued to the sole respondent was validly served and this has been recorded in the order dated 19.07.2024 but this Court was of the view that the notice may be served upon the sole respondent through paper publication also. Consequently, an order for substituted service of notice was passed on 19.07.2024 and pursuant thereto, the notice has been served through paper publication and supplementary affidavit with regard to the same has been brought on record. The learned counsel submits that the sole respondent is deliberately not appearing before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case on merits. 4. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure – 5) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No.1 of 2020, whereby the learned court has been pleased to allow the amendment filed by the respondent. The learned counsel submits that the husband of the applicant before the learned court was under employment of the petitioners and upon his death on 20.10.2015, a petition was filed seeking workmen compensation. She has submitted that at the advanced stage of the case and after completion of the evidence on behalf of the claimant, a petition seeking amendment was filed. She submits that the petition for amendment was filed after the petitioners have also led evidence before the learned court while defending the case. The amendment petition has been brought on record as contained in Annexure – 3. She submits that upon perusal of the amendment petition it is apparent that the entire case is sought to be changed. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the specific case of the claimant was that the accident had occurred on 20.10.2015 at about 7.50 p.m. when the concerned workmen was returning to his residence after completion of his shift and the amendment sought for was that the accident had taken place on 20.10.2015 at about 7.50 a.m. when the concerned employee was going to join his general shift duty. She submits that as per the written statement filed by the petitioners before the court, the concerned employee was in general shift and as per the last attendance report, his last date of attendance was 19.10.2015 and he was on sick from 20.10.2015 to 28.10.2015, and therefore, he was not on duty on 20.10.2015 and he was admitted in the morning on 20.10.2015 in the Central Hospital, Dakra. 6. The learned counsel submits that the case of the claimant as initially pleaded that the ex-employee met with the accident while returning from duty from his shift on 20.10.2015 at 7.50 p.m. and died due to accident arising out of and in course of employment was duly disputed on behalf of the petitioners in their written statement and after the petitioners led evidence, the amendment was filed to make out a new case altogether without any statement as to how and under what 2 circumstances, the initial statement was made. She has also submitted that the learned court has allowed the amendment by observing that strict rule of evidence is not applicable and Workmen Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation. She has submitted that though strict rules of evidence and pleadings are not applicable in connection with workmen compensation case but the impugned order allowing the amendment has enabled the claimant to make out a new case altogether. She has submitted that ultimately the case has to be decided on the basis of materials brought on record. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon going through the materials placed on record, it is evident that the claimant had initially made a claim that on 20.10.2015 at about 7.50 pm, the concerned employee was returning to his residence after completion of his shift and while coming back, he met with the accident. The amendment sought for was that on 20.10.2015 at about 7.50 am, the concerned employee was going to join his general shift duty at CCL, KDH project from his residence and while going to join his duty, he met with the accident. 8. The written statement of the petitioners also reveals that the concerned employee was admitted to emergency at Central Hospital at 8 a.m. on 20.10.2015. Thus, the date of the accident as 20.10.2015 and the time of the accident at around 7.50 a.m. – 8 a.m. is not in dispute even in the written statement of the petitioner. 9. This Court is of the view that the strict rule of evidence and pleadings are applicable in workmen compensation cases and it is a beneficial legislation and under all circumstances, the entitlement, if any, of the legal heirs and successors of the concerned workman with regard to compensation has to be adjudicated. The learned court while allowing the petition seeking amendment has observed as under: “Having heard to both parties and on perusal of their pleadings, I find that the claimant Panwa Devi has filed the present case for compensation on account of death of her husband by injury under the employment of the opposite party. The case of the claimant / petitioner is based on the principle of extension of the workplace of her husband as the accident has been alleged to be taken place in the way. The principle of notional extension, if applies on the facts of the case, are equally applicable in course of going to the duty or in course of returning from the duty. So, in 3 my view there is no change in the nature of the claim by the proposed amendment. I further find that there are sufficient documentary evidences on the case record, including admission of the opposite party, that the deceased Fuldev Ganjhu was found injured in the morning of 20.102.2015 and brought to hospital at about 8:00 am. Therefore, I am not convinced with this argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the applicant / claimant is trying to make a new case by the proposed amendments. On considering the whole matrix of the present case, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the proposed amendment has been filed to remove ambiguity of the pleadings and is necessary for the just decision of the case. Although the application has been filed at the belated stage, but it cannot be the sole ground to reject the application especially in this case where there is admission of the opposite party about the injury to the deceased in the morning of 20.10.2015. Moreover, the Workmen Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation where no strict rule of evidence are applied. In view of above discussions, the amendment application dated 12.10.2022 is allowed. The applicant is directed to carve out the amendment within seven days from today. The opposite parties are at liberty to file additional written statement if required. The case record is posted for filing additional written statement/ framing of additional issues if any / evidence of the opposite party on 05.01.2023.” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, this writ Interim order if any, stands vacated. petition is hereby dismissed. 11. 12. 13. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. concerned through FAX/email. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4