9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act; Interpretation of lease deed terms; Liability of lessor in workman's injury case. Analysis: 1. The case involved a workman, Bawa Singh, who sustained injuries at a flour mill leased by Jagdish Chander to Suraj Bhan and Kishori Lal. The Workmen's Compensation Act claim was made against all parties, with the Commissioner absolving Jagdish Chander but awarding compensation against Suraj Bhan and Kishori Lal, including costs incurred post-January 31, 1956. 2. Bawa Singh appealed the decision, arguing that the lease deed implied his employment by Jagdish Chander due to terms requiring his retention by the lessees. The Single Judge dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lease money's insufficiency to cover Bawa Singh's salary. The Judge doubted Jagdish Chander's agreement to pay Bawa Singh's salary alongside lease payments. 3. The High Court noted the Judge's oversight of crucial evidence, including the scribe's testimony confirming the lease deed's terms about Bawa Singh's employment by Jagdish Chander. The Court highlighted Jagdish Chander's failure to produce the lease deed or testify, leading to a presumption against him. 4. The Court criticized the Single Judge for not considering the scribe's evidence and the lack of cross-examination on Bawa Singh's statements about the lease terms. It emphasized the importance of the lease deed terms in determining the responsibility for Bawa Singh's remuneration. 5. The Court pointed out the oversight in focusing solely on the lease money's adequacy without considering the lease deed's terms regarding Bawa Singh's employment and remuneration. It highlighted the lessees' obligation to pay Bawa Singh as part of the lease agreement. 6. The Court rejected the argument that the finding of Bawa Singh's employment status was a question of fact not subject to appeal. It emphasized the wide scope of appeal under the Letters Patent, allowing for review of factual findings if deemed erroneous. 7. The Court noted the Single Judge's failure to consider crucial evidence and reiterated the importance of the lease terms in determining Bawa Singh's employment status. 8. The Court rejected the limitation on appeal based on substantial questions of law, asserting that misdirection on a legal issue qualifies as a substantial question. It criticized the Commissioner's failure to consider material evidence and draw adverse inferences from Jagdish Chander's non-cooperation. 9. The appeal was allowed, holding Jagdish Chander, Suraj Bhan, and Kishori Lal jointly liable to pay compensation to Bawa Singh. The compensation amount was modified based on the lease deed terms. 10. The Court addressed the suggestion to apportion compensation between parties but found no legal provision for such action, emphasizing Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for indemnification. 11. The Court concluded by holding Jagdish Chander, Suraj Bhan, and Kishori Lal liable for compensation to Bawa Singh, with no order on appeal costs. 12. Judge Bishan Narain concurred with the decision, and the appeal was allowed.
|
