Shyama Devi v. Union Of India And Another

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. Counsel for the parties are heard on merits of the case.

3. The appellant's husband was employed as a switchman at Rajhara Railway Station of the Eastern Railway in Dhanbad division. The claim for compensation made by the appellant on the ground that her husband died during the course of his employment was rejected by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court holding that there was no causal connection between the death and the employment. The order of the Labour Court has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned order by dismissing the appeal.

4. To appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the deceased employee died in the course of employment, only few facts, as noted by the High Court, are required to be stated. On 5-2-1994 at about 4.00 p.m, a group of anti-social elements armed with deadly weapons trespassed the office of the stationmaster at the railway station and damaged railway property. The deceased switchman was on duty between 8.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m who, just before the incident, had left the office and reached his quarters. On hearing the commotion and finding that the office of the stationmaster was attacked by a mob, he took out his licensed gun and proceeded towards the railway station. At the railway station, while he was trying to pacify the mob, he suffered lathi-blow on his head. He was taken to the hospital but ultimately died as a result of the said head injury.

5. On the above facts, there was no justification for the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for coming to the finding that the death of the deceased workman did not arise during the course of his employment. Merely because after his duty period, he had gone to his quarters and come out only after hearing a commotion to pacify the mob, it cannot be said that his death was not in the course of his employment. As the facts show, he was courageous enough to come out of his quarters even after his duty hours to save railway property. Learned counsel appearing for the Railways, tried to support the order stating that the son of the deceased has been given compassionate appointment and full service benefits have been paid. In our opinion, there is no ground to deny to his dependants compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Presiding Officer has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning Rs 1600 and was aged 56 years at the time of his death. On the basis of his last wages and age, according to Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a total sum of Rs 1,05,560 was payable as compensation on the death of the deceased but since the claim was made for Rs 84,448, we will restrict the award for the aforesaid sum as has been claimed in the claim petition. Apart from the above quantum of compensation, the appellant would be entitled to statutory interest payable on this sum. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs 84,448 with statutory interest under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The amount shall be paid by the Railways within a period of eight weeks.