M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act v. Smt. Angura Sahis @ Angura Devi

--------- For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Ms. Aprajita Sinha, Advocate ……… 07/Dated: 29/01/2025 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment/Award dated

14.03.2020 passed by learned Presiding Officer-cum- Employees Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 11 of 2018 whereby the claim filed by the respondent under sections, 3, 4 and 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 19223 has been allowed and the appellants were directed to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,65,160/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death i.e. 11.09.2016 till the date of actual payment. .

3. The learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that for 1 maintaining the appeal, the awarded amount along with interest to the tune of Rs. 8,87,989/- after deduction of T.D.S. has already been deposited before the Employee Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad. She submits that the sole respondent had filed claim application under sections 3, 4 and 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of death of one Yudhisthir Sahis @ Judhisthir Sahis stating therein that he was a permanent employee of New Akashkinari Colliery, Govindpur Area-III of M/s BCCL. He was designated as General Mazdoor. On

10.09.2016, Yudhisthir Sahis was working in underground mines in the night shift at Akashkinari Colliery. He fell down into the mines and became unconscious while he was performing his duty and with the help of co-workers and management personnel he was provided first aid at Colliery Hospital. Thereafter he was admitted in Central Hospital, Dhanbad and died during treatment on 11.09.2016. The applicant is said to be the wife of the deceased and the monthly wages of the deceased -workman was Rs. 25,000/- per month and he was aged about 46 years at the time of his death. She submits that was the case of the respondent before the learned Presiding Officer-cum- Employees Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Dhanbad.

4. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellants submits that after notice the appellants appeared before the learned Commissioner and thereafter Award has been passed. She submits that there is no injury etc on the body of the deceased and in absence of that the learned Tribunal has wrongly passed the said Award. She submits that the deceased fell down and became unconscious and death has occurred in view of that the case made under Sections 3 and 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is not made out. She further submits that there is no clear- cut finding how the death has occurred inspite of that the learned Tribunal has passed the said Award. Learned counsel for the appellants relied in the case of “Leela Devi and Another Vs. Ram Lal and Another” reported in ILLN 995. She submits that the said Award may kindly be quashed.

5. Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the respondent draws the attention of the Court to the evidences of O.P.W.-I and in para 13 he has stated that 2 the deceased met with an accident while he was on duty and O.P.W-2 has also stated in para 15 that the deceased became unconscious at his working place. He submits that the learned Tribunal has given a clear-cut finding on the basis of statement of the witnesses of the appellants itself. He submits that there is no illegality in the Award.

6. In view of above argument of the learned counsel for the parties only law point involved is as to whether accident has taken place on working place or not ?

7. It is an admitted position that the deceased was working with the New Akashkinari Colliery, Govindpur Area-III of M/s BCCL and he was employed there and he was working in underground mines. In the light of statement of O.P.W.-1 which has been recorded in the Award of the learned Tribunal, the Court finds that in para 13 he has stated that the deceased met with an accident while he was on duty and identically O.P.W-2 has also stated in para 15 that the deceased became unconscious at his working place. Thus, the employment and working place is proved. It is also admitted by the O.P.Ws that he became unconscious while he was on duty. Based on this, the learned Tribunal has passed the Award and he has come to the conclusion that in different types of poisonous gases and percentage of oxygen varies in the under ground mines cannot be ruled out. The nature of employment of the deceased was full of stress and strain as such the deceased fell down while performing his duty. It was not proved before the learned Commissioner by the BCCL that the deceased was suffering from any disease or that he was not fit for performing duty in the underground mines. Further, the BCCL has not examined the doctor before the learned Commissioner and in this background the learned Commissioner has held that the deceased met with an accident and has awarded the said amount.

8. The only argument has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no injury and in view of that it cannot be said that it was an accident.

9. The word “accident” has already been defined long ago in Fenton V. J. 3 Thorley and Co., (1903) A.C. 443 and it has been considered in the case of “ Som Dutt Builders Ltd. Vs. Phool Kumari, wife of late Manbirender Singh “ 2004 (74) DRJ 626 wherein para 9 it has been held as under; “9. What the word “accident” means was settled long ago in Fenton v. J. Thorley and Co., [1903] A.C. 443. After reviewing the case law, the title of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897 and its preliminary sections, Lord Macnaghten concluded on page 448 of the Report that: “... the expression “accident” is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.” On page 453 of the Report, Lord Lindley said: “The word “accident” is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is often use to denote any unintended and unexpected loss or hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word “accident” is also often used to denote both the cause and the effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them. The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected events.”

10. In view of above and if the cause is not known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident.

11. “Accident” during the course of employment in the workman compensation Act was also subject matter in the case of “Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak” 1969 (2) SCC 607, para 5 is quoted hereunder:- “5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of employment” are understood to mean that “during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.” In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression “arising out of employment” is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such — to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises ‘out of employment’. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley [(1917) AC 352] Lord Sumner laid down the following test for determining whether an accident “arose out of the employment”: “There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person’s employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of the workman was within the sphere of the employment, or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the 4 position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury.”

12. In view of above judgment, the expression applies to employment as such — to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises ‘out of employment’. In other words, if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed.

13. Notional extension was subject matter in the case of “ Leela Bai and Another V. Seema Chouhan and Another” (2019) 4 SCC 325 wherein para 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. In the facts of the case, and the evidence available, it is evident that the deceased was present at the bus terminal and remained with the bus even after arrival from Indore not by choice, but by compulsion and necessity, because of the nature of his duties. The route timings of the bus required the deceased to be readily available with the bus so that the passenger service being provided by Respondent 1 remained efficient and was not affected. If the deceased would have gone home everyday after parking the bus and returned the next morning, the efficiency of the timing of the bus service facility to the travelling public would definitely have been affected, dependant on the arrival of the deceased at the bus- stand from his house. Naturally that would bring an element of uncertainty in the departure schedule of the bus and efficiency of the service to the travelling public could be compromised. Adherence to schedule by the deceased would naturally enure to the benefit of Respondent 1 by enhancement of income because of timely service. It is not without reason that the deceased would not go home for weeks as deposed by the appellant. Merely because the deceased was coming down the roof of the bus after having his meal, cannot be considered in isolation and interpreted so myopically to hold that he was off duty and therefore would not be entitled to compensation.”

14. In view of above it cannot be said that the accident has not taken place while the deceased was discharging his duty. The finding based on the basis of admission of appellants’ own witnesses O.P.W-1 and O.P.W-2.

15. So far the judgement relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in concerned, in that case the Himachal Pradesh High Court has come to the conclusion that the burden is upon the workman to prove about the employment accident in the course of employment. In the present appeal, on the admission of O.P.Ws itself it has been proved that the death has occurred while he was discharging duty and in view of that the said judgment is not helping the appellants.

16. In view of above reasons and analysis the law point is answered 5 accordingly. This appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that awarded amount has already been received by the claimants. Satyarthi/A.F.R ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 6