Tiku Kahar v. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd., Calcutta High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The case arises from an accident in which the appellant lost his right arm. The Commissioner found that the accident occurred due to the appellant's wilful disobedience of an explicit order given by the night Sirdar of the Colliery, forbidding drilling at a specific location marked by a cross over an old hole. The appellant contested this finding, asserting he did not see the cross mark. The Commissioner accepted the employer's version that the cross mark existed and that the appellant wilfully disobeyed the order. The appellant appealed against this finding to the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal that permits an appeal to the High Court under Section 30, Proviso (2), Sub-section 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Whether the finding of wilful disobedience by the Commissioner was justified on the evidence presented.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

No substantial question of law is involved; hence, no appeal lies to the High Court from the Commissioner's order under the specified section of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The night Sirdar marked a cross over an old hole and expressly forbade drilling there, which the appellant wilfully disobeyed.

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant testified that he did not see any cross mark forbidding drilling at the location.

The appellant argued that since daily wages were paid regardless of the number of holes drilled, there was no incentive for wilful disobedience.

The appellant suggested that if drilling occurred at the forbidden place, it was due to forgetfulness, negligence, or other reasons, not wilful disobedience.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the factual findings made by the Commissioner, particularly the determination that the appellant wilfully disobeyed an express order not to drill at a marked location. The court acknowledged that while the evidence might have supported an inference that the drilling was due to negligence or forgetfulness rather than wilful disobedience, the finding of fact by the Commissioner was within his purview and not subject to interference on appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court emphasized that wilful disobedience implies intentional conduct motivated by expected benefit or convenience, which the evidence did not conclusively establish. Nevertheless, the court deferred to the Commissioner's factual conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Commissioner's finding of wilful disobedience stands, and the appellant is not entitled to compensation under the appeal. The court did not order costs and did not establish any new precedent. The court expressed hope that the employers might voluntarily compensate the appellant despite the dismissal.

Tiku Kahar v. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd.

1. The objection that has been taken in this case on behalf of the respondents is that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and that being so no appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner under Section 30, Proviso. (2), Sub-section 1, Workmen's Compensation Act, (8 of 1923). The learned Commissioner has found that' the accident, which was a very unfortunate one by which the appellant lost his right arm was due to the wilful disobedience of the order expressly given to him as well as to the other workmen by the night Sirdar of the Colliery.

2. The case of the defendants-respondents was that the Sirdar actually made a cross over an old hole and he told the applicant and the other men not to drill there. The applicant gave his own evidence in support of his case. His evidence was that he saw no cross mark. The Commissioner has found that the version on behalf of the employers was true so that it must be taken as a fact that there was a cross mark and the workmen were forbidden to drill at the place. The next finding of the Commissioner was that there was wilful disobedience. It may be that upon the evidence in the case the Commissioner might reasonably have come to the conclusion that the facts do not show wilful disobedience. The evidence is that it does not matter how many holes are drilled by a workman in the course of the day. They are not paid by piece work but the applicant among others received a daily-pay. There was no inducement on his part to wilfully disobey an order that had been made. The evidence of Jagannath Mondal on behalf of the opposite party is that a workman would get the same daily pay whether he drilled one hole or 20 holes even if the gallery had been cleared. Under such circumstances it might have been inferred quite reasonably that although the applicant drilled a hole at a place where there was a cross mark, it might have been due to forgetfulness or negligence or for any other reason but not as an act of wilful disobedience. A man does a thing wilfully when he does it intentionally because he expects some benefit to himself, either some convenience or an easy way of doing a piece of work and so forth. But it seems to me that the finding is one of fact which might be arrived at on the evidence. It is unfortunate that such a finding has been arrived at by the learned commissioner with which we cannot interfere in appeal having regard to the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. I hope, however, that the employers will find their way to make some compensation to the unfortunate workman, although he has failed in his appeal.

3. The appeal will stand dismissed but we make no order as to costs.

S.K. Ghose, J.

4. I agree.

Tiku Kahar v. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Tiku Kahar v. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd.

Comments