M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIESversusRAM CHANDER PRADHAN AND ANR.

A                        M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES
                                    v.
                    RAM CHANDER PRADHAN AND ANR.

                               NOVEMBER 14, 2000

B             [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.]


          Labour Laws:

           Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Claim under-Contention that
C    only those persons who are employed in a factory within the meaning of the
    factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim under the Workmen's
     Compensation Act-Propriety of-Held, for the Workmen's Compensation Act
    to apply it is not necessary that the workman should be working in a factory
    as defined in the Factories Act-Workmen's Compensation Act merely clarifies
D   that persons employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in any premise
    wherein a manufacturing process defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the
    Factory Act is carried on, are workmen-Significantly the definition of the
    term 'factory' as appearing in the Factories Act, has not been incorporated
    in the Workmen's Compensation Act-Sections 2(n)(ii), 30, Schedule II item
    II-Factories Act, 1948-Sections 2(k), 2(m).
E
          Appellant, a sole proprietory concern, ran its workshop of shaping steel
    sheets into various shapes and forms. The 1st respondent at the relevant time
    was working as a press operator with the appellant. He sustained injuries to
    his right index finger and thumb while working on a press as a result of
F   which his right index finger was amputated.

          The 1st respondent filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation
    Act claiming compensation which was allowed. The appellant preferred an
    appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before High
    Court which was dismissed in limine. Hence the present appeal.
G
          On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Workmen's
    Compensation Act did not apply to the appellant's establishment; that a joint
    reading of Section 2(n)(ii) and Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation
    Act, 1923 and Sections 2(k) and 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 makes it
    clear that even for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act only
H                                       576.
   SUNIL INDUSTRIES v. RAM CHANDER PRADHAN [VARIAVA, J.] 577

those persons who are employed in a factory within the meaning of the            A
Factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim under the Workmen's
Compensation Act.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD : t. It is true that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has         B
been amended on a number of occasions. However, inspite of numerous
amendments the Legislature has purposely omitted to specifically provide that
only a workman who is employed in a factory, as defined in the Factories Act,
could make a claim. All that has been done is that in Schedule II of the
Workmen's Compensation Act it is inter-alia clarified that persons employed,     C
otherwise than in a clerical capacity in any premises wherein a manufacturing
process as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 is
carried on, are workmen. Significantly, the definition of the term "Factory"
as appearing in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 has not
been incorporated in !he Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus it is clear that
for the Workmen's Compensation Act to apply it is not necessary that the         D
workman should be working in a Factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948.
It has not been denied that the workshop of the Appellant would fall under
clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the 1st Respondent
would be a Workman within the meaning of the term as defined in the
Workmen's Compensation Act. (579-B-El
                                                                                 E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1998.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.97 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in F.A.O. No. 827 of 1997.

      Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant.                                          F
     The Jugdment of the Court was delivered by

     S. N. VARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th May, 1997
by which the first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine.
                                                                                 G
      Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

       The appellant is a sole proprietory concern. It runs its workshop of
shaping steel sheets into various shapes and forms. The lst Respondent was,
at the relevant time, working as a press operator with the Appellant. On 27th
January, 1993 while working on a press, the lst Respondent sustained injuries    H
     578                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS L2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to his right index finger and thumb. The Appellant rushed the I st Respondent
     to the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon (Haryana). The injuries necessitated
     amputation of 2.5 x 0.5 Cms. of the index finger.

           On 14th June, 1993, the 1st Respondent filed a claim under the Workmen's
     Compensation Act, I 923 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with
B    interest thereon @ 16% per annum. The Appellant in his reply, inter alia,
     claimed that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act would not
     apply to his establishment.

           On 15th October 1996 the Commissioner held that the Workmen's
     Compensation Act applied and that the Appellant was liable to pay
C    compensation in a sum of Rs. 29,814 together with Rs. 5,000 as penalty and
     interest at 12% per annum.

         The Appellant preferred an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
    Compensation Act before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. That Appeal
D   came to be dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 7th May, 1997.

           It is admitted that the I st Respondent was working as a press operator
     with the Appellant at the relevant time. It is admitted that the accident did
     take place on 27th January, 1993 and that it resulted in injuries to the right
     index finger and thumb of the 1st Respondent and that this necessitated
E    amputation of2.5 x 0.5 Cms. of the index finger. Mr. Vasdev however, submitted
    that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not apply to the Appellant's
    establishment. He submitted that Section 2(n) (ii) of the Workmen's
    Compensation Act provides that a workman is a person employed in a capacity
    specified in Schedule JI. He then referred to Schedule II of the Workmen's
    Compensation Act and pointed out that under item 2 of Schedule II a person
F   would be a workman provided he is employed in any premises where a
    manufacturing process as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories
    Act, 1948 was being carried on. He submitted that this showed that the
    provisions of the Factories Act were being incorporated into the Workmen's
    Compensation Act. He submitted that this is also clear from the fact that over
G   the years there have been a number of amendments to the Workmen's
    Compensation Act incorporating therein provision of the Factories Act or
    provisions similar thereto. He then referred to Section 2(k) and 2 (m) of the
    Factories Act and submitted that under the Factories Act the manufacturing
    process must be in a factory where ten or more workers are working (if the
    manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power) or twenty
H   or more persons are working (if the manufacturing process is being carried
           SUNIL INDUSTRIES v. RAM CHANDER PRADHAN [VARIA VA, J.) 579

        on without the aid of power); .He submitted that a joint reading of all these    A
        provisions makes it clear ~at even for the purposes of the Workmen's
        Compensation Act only thos~ persons who are employed in a factory within
        the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim
        under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

              We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. It is      B
.....   true that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been amended on a
        number of occasions. However, inspite of numerous amendments the
        Legislature has purposely omitted to specifically provide that only a workman
        who is employed in a factory, as defined in the Factories Act, could make a
        claim. All that has been done is that in Schedule II of the Workmen's            C
        Compensation Act it is inter a/ia clarified that persons employed otherwise
        than in a clerical capacity, in any premises wherein a manufacturing process
        as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948, are workmen.
        Significantly the definition of the term "Factory" as appearing in clause (m)
        of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 has not been incorporated in the
        Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus it is clear that for the Workmen's              D
        Compensation Act to apply it is not necessary that the workman should be
        working in a Factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948. It has not been
        denied that the workshop ..Q'f-.the Appellant would fall under clause (k) of
        Section 2 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the lst Respondent would be a
        Workman within the meaning of the term as defined in the Workmen's               E
        Compensation Act.

              Under the circumstances, we see. no merit in the appeal. The same
        stands dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

        M.P.                                                      Appeal dismissed.