Challenging the death of the employee not arises during the course of the employment: Cuttack High Court
The appeals involve three sets of Employment compensation cases. Challenging the liability and the quantum in the employment compensation case as held by the Hon’ble Cuttack High court before the Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Rath in the matter of Tillotama Dash &amp; Ors. V. Secretary Managing Committee, Paradeep Port Trust, Paradeep. [FAO No.321 of 2018]. The case arises from the fact wherein, the managing committee of Paradeep Port Trust in filling the appeal agitated the issue of liability and submitted that respondent management has no responsibility for making payment of compensation involving the death due to the accident in question and have no remote connection with the management involved herein. The appeal arises out of three sets of accidents involving the death of three persons. Section 2(e) of the Employment compensation act of 1923 states employer includes anybody to person whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer and the service is temporary lent or hire to another person. Respondent managing Committee contended that there is no establishment of the role of the Principal Employer in the accident. The claimant strongly disputed the claim of the Respondent Managing Committee filed FAO [First Appeal Order] seeing enhancement of the compensation amount. The material document and evidence are able to establish that the accident connects the Principal employer and there is a complete failure in distributing such material by the respondent management. Section 3 of the Employment Compensation Act of 1923 the employer is liable for compensation when the injury is caused during the course of employment and has permanent incapacitates. The Hon’ble Court held that the claim on the managing committee is related to the fact that the accident in question has not arisen in course of employment and management has no liability to pay the compensation and cannot be forced. The Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Rath stated from the pleadings and the discussion with the authority finds out that there is a force in the submitting of the material documents. It concluded by stating that, “There is a slight reduction in the compensation amount as awarded in the disposal of the employment compensation case. The compensation award by the authority to a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- from Rs. 6,25,880/- from the interim director of the lower authority court to the respondent Management to release 30% of the compensation amount.”
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K FAO No.4518 An Appeal U s. 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act. Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep Bandana Swain & Ors. Versus Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep Kabita Senapati & Ors. Versus W I T H FAO No.4518 : Appellant Respondents : Appellant Respondents W I T H FAO No.4618 Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep : Appellant Tilottama Dash & Ors. Versus Respondents 2 W I T H FAO No.3218 W I T H FAO No.3918 W I T H FAO No.4018 Tillotama Dash & Ors. Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep Versus Bandana Swain & Ors. Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep Versus Kabita Senapati & Ors Versus Secretary Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust Paradeep For Appellant In FAO Nos.453 459 4618 : Appellants Respondents : Appellants Respondents : Appellants Respondents M s. A.P. Das P. Panda K.J. Prakash M s. G. Pujari R. Achary T. Barik N. Barik A. Pati S. Hidayatullah S.R. Ojha 3 For Appellant In FAO Nos.321 396 4018 For Respondents In FAO Nos. 321 396 4018 For Respondents In FAO Nos.453 459 4618 Mr. J.D. Barik M s. A.P. Das P. Panda K.J. Prakash M s. G. Pujari R. Achary T. Barik N. Barik A. Pati S. Hidayatullah S.R. Ojha Mr. J.D. Barik CORAM : JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH Date of hearing & Judgment :: 29.07.2021 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. All these appeals involve three sets of Employment Compensation Cases. F.A.O. Nos.459 396 of 2018 arises out of E.C. Case No.415. F.A.O. Nos.321 4618 arises out of E.C. Case No.54 of 2016 and F.A.O. Nos.400 4518 arises out of E.C. Case No.716. The Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust have filed the FAO Nos.453 459 4618 challenging the liability and the quantum in the E.C. Cases referred to hereinabove. the Claimants Nos.453 459 464 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount involved in the above three E.C. Cases respectively. In disposal of the E.C. No.48 of 2016 4 there has been award of a sum of Rs.6 25 880 . Similarly in disposal of the E.C. Case No.71 of 2016 there has been award of a sum of Rs.3 38 880 and in disposal of the E.C. Case No.54 of 2016 there has been award of a sum of Rs.5 42 240 . Appeals being filed the Management has already deposited the amount as awarded and the same are under fixed deposit on being invested by the lower authority for pendency of the appeals. It is needless to mention here that all the E.C. Cases involve three sets of accidents and the cases standing on similar footing are taken up together and decided accordingly on consent of all the parties. 3. Since all these appeals arises out of three sets of accident involving death of three persons and for the commonness involving all the appeals this Court on consent of both the parties disposes of all these appeals by this common 4. The Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust in filing three sets of appeals agitated the issue of liability and submitted that they have no responsibility for making payment of compensation involving the death due to the accident in question and have even no remote connection with the Management involved herein. 5 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to the grounds raised learned counsel for the Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust contended is no establishment of the role of the Principal Employer in the accident. On the issue of quantum learned counsel for the Managing Committee taking this Court to the plea taken in all the cases submitted that the cases no doubt involve death there has been wrong assessment on the head of strain and stress involving each deceased involved herein. It is in the premises Mr. Dash learned counsel for the Managing Committee requested this Court for interfering in the judgments in E.C. Cases indicated hereinabove and passing appropriate order. 6. To the contrary learned counsel for the Claimants drawing the attention of this Court to the claim made in the claim application and the averments made in the written statement strongly disputed the claim of the Managing Committee Paradeep Port Trust. It is hereby contended that there is sufficient pleading in the claim application and not only that the Claimants herein through material documents and evidence are even able to establish that the accident connects the principal employer and there is complete failure in disturbing such materials by the Management and therefore occurrence in question covers the role of the Management. So far as the challenge of the Managing Committee to the award of compensation on the 6 premises of wrong calculation on the head of strain and stress is concerned learned counsel for the Claimants however did not dispute to the same. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties before the authority below as well as discussion involving the impugned judgment this Court finds the claim of the Managing Committee so far it relates to the fact that the accident in question has not arisen in course of employment and thereby Management has no liability to pay the compensation does not bear force. Further considering the challenge of the Managing Committee to the grant of compensation this Court from the pleadings and the discussions of the authority below finds there is force in the submission of Mr. Dash learned counsel for the Managing Committee. For the material disclosures and keeping in view the interest of the claimants involving death cases this Court finds there should be slight reduction in the compensation amount as awarded in disposal of the three E.C. Cases. As a consequence this Court interfering with the judgment passed in E.C. Case No.48 of 2016 reduces the compensation awarded by authority to a sum of Rs.5 80 000 from Rs. Rs.6 25 880 . Similarly in E.C. Case No.54 of 2012 this Court reduces the compensation amount to a sum of Rs.5 00 000 from Rs.5 42 240 and in E.C. Case No.71 of 2016 this Court reduces the 7 compensation amount to a sum of Rs.2 90 000 from Rs.3 38 880 . Further keeping in view that for the interim direction of this Court there is already release of 30% of the compensation amount as awarded by the lower authority and the whole amount involving the three E.C. Cases are in deposit this Court directs the claimants involving three E.C. Cases be released with balance amount after deduction of payment already made but keeping in view the reduced compensation indicated hereinabove in respective E.C. Cases and as the whole amount remains under fixed deposit the Claimants shall also be entitled to proportionate interest on the balance amount and the balance amount along with balance proportionate interest as accrued thereon in the meantime shall be released in favour of the Management in all the three respective E.C. Cases. 8. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the Appellants Respondents. 9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID 19 situation are continuing learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website at par with certified copy subject to attestation by the concerned advocate in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March 8 Orissa High Court Cuttack. The 29th day of July 2021 Ayaskanta Jena Senior Stenographer 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April 2021. …. … 