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