Vardhman Cloth Stores And Ors. vs Anil
2003 Latest Caselaw 989 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.B. Naik, J.

1. The appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, challenged the order passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Application No. WCA No. 77 of 1998, whereby the learned 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, has allowed the claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,123 to the applicant with other consequential benefits. Mr. Upadhye, learned advocate appearing for the appellants raised substantial question of law in this appeal by contending that while deciding the application the learned Judge has not considered properly item No. 26 of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Entry No. 26 reads thus:

"(xxvi) employed in the handling or transport of goods in, or within the precincts of,--

(a) any warehouse or other place in which goods are stored, and in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months ten or more persons have been so employed, or

(b) any market in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months fifty or more persons have been so employed, or."

2. It is not disputed that the present appellants are carrying on business in cloth in the name and style as 'Vardhman Cloth Stores'. Mr. Upadhye contended that unless the respondent applicant falls within the entry No. 26 of Schedule II read with Section 2(1)(n) of the Act no order of payment of compensation can be passed. The learned counsel Mr. Upadhye, submitted that the place where the accident occurred is not a warehouse or any other place where goods are stored within the meaning of entry No. 26, Schedule II. He submitted that the goods are not 'stored' but are stored in the shelf in the shop. From the evidence that is brought on record, the submission has no substance. It is wholly misconceived. On reading of entry No. 26 it is clear that it covers 'other place' also where the goods are 'stored'. It is not disputed that the appellants are carrying on business in cloth and in that shop the respondent was engaged by the appellant. The phrase 'any other place' in entry No. 26 mean the place where the goods are kept, it goes without saying that cloths are stored in the shop for the purpose of sale. It is the case of respondent, while bringing heap of cloth from 1st floor he fell down and due to which he sustained the injury. In view of this position, the submission of the learned counsel is without any merit. It is the case of the appellants that the accident occurred not in the premises but it occurred when the respondent fell in a ditch while bringing his bicycle from the shop. This fact has not been accepted by the learned Labour Judge. The learned Labour Judge on appreciation of evidence has negatived the contention that is raised by the present appellant. On appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court answered the issue that the accident occurred during the course of employment. This finding is a finding of fact which cannot be gone into by this court in appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Mr. Upadhye, learned advocate contended that misreading of the evidence if the finding is recorded, that becomes a substantial question of law. In my judgment this contention cannot be accepted as the finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence that is produced before him and he appreciated evidence in proper perspective. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

3. The first appeal stands dismissed.