Jharkhand High Court
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Jaitun Bibi on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 265 of 2016
Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant,
P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, District-Bokaro, through
John Tapan Kongari, son of Late P.L. Kongari,
presently working as Assistant General Manager (Law),
Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S.-
B.S. City, District-Bokaro ..... ... Appellant
Versus
Jaitun Bibi, wife of Late Majid Hussain Ansari,
resident of Village & P.O.-Tantri,
P.S.-Tantri, District-Bokaro ..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate.
------
09/ 19.01.2023 Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. The present appeal has been filed being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 15.01.2016 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Commissioner, Employees
Compensation, Bokaro, in W.C. Case No. 03 of 2013, whereby and
whereunder the learned Commissioner has been pleased to direct the
appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,78,260/- along with simple
interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 12.01.2010, till the date of payment.
3. The sole respondent, who is wife of deceased Majid Hussain
Ansari has filed the claim before the Employees Compensation
Commissioner, Bokaro on account of death of her husband. It is stated
that Late Majid Hussain Ansari, the husband of the claimant met with an
accident on 29.11.2009 while he was going to his duty in A-Shift. It is the
case of the complainant that on the said day, while on his way to the place
of employment, a dumper crossed him with speed causing imbalance to
the deceased who was going on his cycle. It is stated that Majid Hussain
Ansari fell down and has got injuries on his right leg near ankle and heel.
It is stated that thereafter her husband was brought to the Plant Medical
Unit from where he was referred to Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro, for
treatment. It is stated that Majid Hussain Ansari was admitted in Bokaro
General Hospital on the same day and after treatment, plaster was put on
his leg. Subsequently, he was discharged on 09.12.2009 and was advised
to take one month rest and report to OPD, BGH for further treatment. The
claimant alleged that infection developed in the fractured area due to
which he died on 12.01.2010.
4. By the impugned judgment, learned Commissioner has been
pleased to allow the aforesaid claim and awarded the aforesaid amount in
favour of the claimant.
5. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the accident took place on 29.11.2009 and the
deceased was hospitalized in the hospital on 03.12.2009 and his ankle was
operated on 04.12.2009 and he was discharged from the hospital on
09.12.2009. He submits that the deceased was again visited the hospital in
OPD for testing of his eyes on 09.01.2010 and the death was occurred on
12.01.2010. He submits that the law point is involved in this appeal in
view of the fact that the death has not occurred due to that accident while
discharging the official duty, as such, the Employees Compensation Act,
1923 is not attracted. On this ground, the award passed by the learned
Commissioner is bad in law. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashida Haroon Kupurade
Versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited &
Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 271.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the sole-respondent submits that the ankle of the deceased
was operated and due to infection, the death has occurred. In that view of
the matter the finding of the learned Commissioner is well founded and
there is no illegality in the said award.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the judgment of the
learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Bokaro, passed in
W.C. Case No. 03 of 2013 and finds that five issues have been framed for
deciding the claim case. Exhibit-A/1 Exhibit-A-1/1 are the death
certificates, Exhibit-2 is the document about the report of the accident,
Exhibit-3 is the carbon copy of the report of the accident, Exhibit-4 is the
separation order passed by the employer after the death of the employee,
Exhibit-A/5 is the post-mortem report, Exhibit-6 is certified copy of U.D.
Case No. 01 of 2010 and Exhibit-7 is the fardbeyan of Sariful Haque, on
the basis of which, the information to the police was given. While
deciding the issue Nos. 2 and 3, learned Commissioner has considered
that defendant witness namely Tapeshwar Narayan Deo, who has
admitted that the deceased has received injury in the right ankle of the leg
and he was brought to the Bokaro General Hospital for treatment and he
died on 12.01.2010. The accident under the plant at the chowk has also
been admitted. The learned Commissioner has considered the evidence of
doctor, who has stated in para-13 that in cutting of the stitch, the infection
cannot be ruled out and the death has occurred after one month of cutting
of the stitch and the doctor has not denied that due to that accident the
death has not occurred. In the post-mortem report, it has also been found
that in the leg, the plaster was cut and it was found swelled about 2 inches
and there was a smell in the blood at that portion and considering this
aspect of the matter, the infection cannot be ruled out, which is the finding
of the learned Commissioner. The accident occurred under the plant near
the chowk, which has been admitted by the defendant witness.
8. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in the case of Rashida Haroon Kupurade (Supra), is on
different footing, as in that case, the death has occurred after six months,
where in the case in hand, the death has occurred after one month and the
post-mortem report of the deceased clearly suggests that the there was
infection, that's why, the said judgment is not helping the appellant.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent fairly
submits that the awarded amount has already been received by the
respondent.
10. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned
award, passed by the learned Commissioner. As such, no relief can be
extended to the appellant and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
