DREDGING CORP.OF INDIA LTD. Vs P.K.BHATTACHERJEE
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Case number: C.A. No.-008278-008278 / 2013
Diary number: 29138 / 2011
Advocates: PARTHA SIL Vs
ABHIJIT SENGUPTA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8278 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.26414 of 2011]
Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. …..Appellant
Versus
P.K. Bhattacherjee …..Respondent
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8279 OF 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.13296 of 2012]
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8278 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.26414 of 2011]
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail.
The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation (1st Court), West Bengal
held on 24.6.2010 that the Applicant/Respondent had met with an
accident on 27.12.1999 while in the employment of the Appellant and
that considering his age, wages and injury he was entitled to
compensation computed at Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac) which
is the maximum awardable, together with simple interest at the rate of
1
Page 2
twelve per cent per annum till the date of realization. The Appellant
thereafter approached the High Court of Calcutta but without success
as the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 12.8.2011, has dismissed
the Appeal. It held that the Respondent, at the concerned time, was on
duty on Board on one of the Appellant’s vessels and that “this would
mean that he was on duty, any affliction or injury during such time
would come within the ambit of Section 3 of the Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (the erstwhile Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923, till its amendment by Act 45 of 2009).” It is evident that the
Respondent-employee has succeeded concurrently both on facts as
well as on law.
2. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant has laid emphasis on the fact that the Respondent/Claimant
was diagnosed immediately after 27.12.1999 to be suffering an
ischemic heart ailment, rendering it legally impermissible for the
Appellant-company to continue any further with his services. His
argument is that this health malady has not arisen as a consequence of
the Respondent’s services with the Appellant, and hence no
compensation was payable under Section 3 of the Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923 which comes into operation only in the event
of an employee suffering personal injury caused by an accident arising
2
Page 3
out of and in the course of his employment. The contention on behalf
of the Appellant-company is that an ischemic heart condition is
personal to the constitution of the Respondent, totally unrelated to his
service. Although ordinarily we would be loathe to peruse the evidence
led by the parties especially encountering concurrent conclusions, we
have done so in the present case. The Employee’s Compensation Act is
intended for the benefit of an employee, and quintessentially is a no-
fault liability. It appears to us that both the Courts below have
misdirected themselves in law in that because the illness of the
employee was discovered while he was in actual service it has led them
to the conclusion that compensation is payable under Section 3 of the
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. We are also mindful of the fact
that the Commissioner, being the Court of first instance, has held that
he met with an accident on 27.12.1999, and that he suffered 100% loss
of earning capacity as he was permanently unfit for sea-service. It
ought to have distinguished between the discovery of the health
condition while in service and the health condition having occurred
during service. So far as the arguments of the Company are concerned,
especially in the Appeals filed assailing the decision of the
Commissioner, the emphasis has been that the ischemic heart condition
of the employee discovered while he was actually serving with the
3
Page 4
Appellant, was not related to his service. The learned Commissioner
ought to have satisfied himself fully on this aspect of the case rather
than come to a conclusion that an accident had occurred, for which the
evidence is extremely scanty. Faced with this predicament, Mr. Rana
Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the employee has
endeavoured to establish that an ischemic heart condition can result
from job stress which was continuously encountered by the employee.
3. For these reasons, it appears to us to be expedient and just to set aside
the impugned order as well as the order of the Commissioner and
remand the matter back to the Court of the Commissioner for fresh
adjudication de novo. It would then be advisable that a specific issue
be struck as to whether the employee’s ischemic heart condition
developed as a consequence of any stress or strain of his employment
with the Appellant-company. There can be no gainsaying that the
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation
requiring some play at the joints so far as considering a disabled
employee’s claim is concerned. In these circumstances, parties shall
appear before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation (1st Court)
West Bengal or its successor Court, as the case may be, on 11.11.2013.
4. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly. It is, however, made clear that
anything expressed hereinabove shall not be deemed to have an
4
Page 5
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
C.A.No._8279__of 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.13296 of 2012]
5. A perusal of the impugned order makes it palpably clear that the
Appellant-company’s Appeal was dismissed following the decision in
FMAT No.1327 of 2010 (Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. v. P.K.
Bhattacherjee). In these circumstances, this matter also requires to be
remanded to the High Court of Calcutta for a fresh hearing in F.M.A.
No.869 of 2010. Parties to appear before the High Court on
18.11.2013.
6. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
.............................................J .
[T.S. THAKUR]
New Delhi .............................................J.
September 17, 2013. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
5