This is an appeal against the order dated 22nd April 1969, of the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 whereby he granted a sum of Rs, 8,400 as compensation to the respondent along with cost of Rs, 19 for the loss of his eyes during his employment with the appellant-Railway.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was working as a Draftsman in the office of the Chief Engineer, Works Department, P. W. R., Lahore, under the Section Incharge, who ordered him to work on ammonia white printing machine because some prints were to be taken immediately. For this purpose Muhammad Yaqub Ferrotyper, Mohammad Ishaq Draftsman and Mohammad Anwar Mirza Estimator failed to uncork the ammonia bottle and he was called upon to do so. As soon as he tried to pull out the cork the ammonia gas exploded and fell into his eyes as a result of which he became unconscious and was taken to the Railway Hospital. After six days he was referred to the Mayo Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient for 22 days. Thereafter he was also admitted twice on different occasions in the Mayo Hospital, but could not gain his eyesight. The accident took place on 20-9-1966. Memo. of accident (Exh. P. W. 3/1) and accident report (Exh. R. W.
3/2) were prepared. In the latter document against column No, 14 the officer preparing the report mentioned "yes, it arose out and in the course of his employment." This answer was given to the question "did accident arise out of and in the course of his employment." The respondent was given an invalid certificate in January 1968 which is Exh. P. W. 2/2. He gave notice to the appellant for payment of compensation, copy of which is Exh. P. W. 2/3 and the receipts are Exh. P. W. 2/4 and Exh. P W. 2/5. He received no reply and moved an application before the Commissioner. He examined Rehamatullah Zafar Clerk Office of the Chief Engineer, Works Development, P. W. R., Lahore (P. W. 1) who produced form W. C. A. 4, i. e. the accident report mentioned above. The witness in the cross-examination was shown certified copy of medical certificate Exh. R. 1 and the duty list Exh. R. 2.
3. The respondent himself appeared as P. W. 2 and gave the details of the accident. He produced the various documents mentioned above. He, however, admitted in the cross-examination that he was n -t given order in writing by the Section Incharge to open the bottle, but stated that the Section Incharge did order him to work on the machine.
4. The appellate authority produced Mohammad Yaqub Ferrotyper as R. W.
1. He deposed that he was working in the D. 0. Department and was preparing the blue prints for which ammonia was needed. He tried to open the ammonia bottle. Since he could not open it, Mohammad Usman offered to help him in opening the same as he was as standing nearby. He got injuries while opening the bottle. In cross-examination this witness admitted that the respondent was on duty and was working in the same Section. The Section Incharge assigned duty to the employees working in the Department. He, however, emphatically stated that he was allowed by the Section Incharge to get the assistance of other workers working in the Section due to pressure of work.
Mohammad Anwar Estimator, Drawing Office, Development Division, Headquarters, appeared as R.
W. 2 and stated that the respondent was working as Draftsman. He described the duties of the Draftsman and said that the respondent had nothing to do with the opening of ammonia bottle. He did neither see the respondent opening the same nor he knew as to whether Mohammad Yaqub asked him to assist in the opening of the bottle. He, however, admitted that on the day of accident the pressure of work was heavy in the Department. Mohammad Sadiq Hussain, Superintendent appeared as R. W.
3. He deposed that he never gave any instructions to the respondent for assisting machine operator and the accident did not take place in his presence. He, however, claimed to have conducted the enquiry and submitted the report Exh. P. W. 3/1, signed by him.
5. From the perusal of the evidence, produced by the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that the respondent was working in the Drawing Office of the Development Department at Headquarters and during the course of his employment he met with the accident resulting in the loss of both of his eyes. A feeble attempt has been made by producing evidence to show that the respondent voluntarily performed the job which was not affiliated to his duty and as such received injury for which the appellant is not liable to make any payment. There is hardly any substance in this objection for R. W. 1 Mohammad Yaqoob has definitely stated that the Section Incharge had permitted him to secure the assistance of any person working in the Section when there is heavy pressure of work. Mohammad Sadiq Hussain Superintendent R. W. 3 was not present whenthe accident took place and he may not have given any instructions to the respondent to assist the machine operator. He may be right in saying so, but Mohammad Yaqoob has positively stated that he had the authority from his Section Incharge to get the assistance of other workers whenever there was rush of work. This suggestion has not been controverted by the Superintendent Mohammad Sadiq Hussain, who had signed the accident report (Exh. R. W. 3/2) and in column No, 14 of which it is mentioned that the accident took place during the course of the employment of the respondent. Therefore the appellant cannot succeed in raising this plea.
6. It was next contended that the respondent is not a workman as defined in clause (n) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 since he does not come within the ambit of Schedule II to the Act. There is hardly any substance in this submission as well.
The respondent admittedly was not serving in any of the administrative, district or sub- divisional office of the railway in clerical capacity. He was working in the Development Section under the Chief Engineer, Works Development and was a permanent employee. He cannot be excluded from the category or workman entitled to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Sub- clause (ii), clause (n), subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act also provides compensation to any workman who is employed on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. The respondent was getting Rs, 180 only as his salary and it cannot be argued with success that he can be excluded from the category of workman because he was serving in the Railway to whom section 2 (1) (n) (ii) of the Act alone is attracted. The plain reading of clause (11) of section 2 of the Act depicts `workman' as any person who is employed on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule. A person will not be entitled to the benefit of a workman if he is employed in clerical capacity, but where a technician like the respondent working in the Development Section in the Office of the Chief Engineer of the appellant-Railway, who received injury during the course of his employment, he cannot be deprived of the benefits available to a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Secretary of State v. Mt. Geeta and others, a person attached to the Railway Hospital at Nagpur was considered to be a workman entitled to the compensation under the Act.
There is no reason why the respondent should be deprived of the benefits accruing to him as a workman for he was not performing a clerical duty in the office of the Chief Engineer Development.
He being a technical worker employed under the Chief Engineer met with an accident during the course of his employment and the order granting compensation to him is eminently just. The appellant unfortunately has adopted a callous attitude towards its employee. It being a commercial organization should have readily paid compensation to the respondent. To my mind it was imperative for the Railway administration to have arranged for specialized foreign treatment for the respondent at its expense.
7. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. AIR 1938 Nag. 91