FAO No.252 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.252 of 1984 Date of decision: September 17, 2008 General Manager (Telephones), N.W.Circle, Ambala Cantt and Others. …..APPELLANTS Versus Dev Prasad …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Ashok Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Piyush Bansal, Advocate for the appellants-employer. None for the respondent-workman. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): Petition filed by the respondent-workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was accepted by learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 7.12.1983 and he was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7514.80. The present appeal has been filed by the employer under Section 30 of the Act. The case of the claimant-respondent was that while he was working as a Store Lineman with S.D.O (Telephones), Sonepat, a glass FAO No.252 of 1984 -2- fell on his left hand. He suffered an injury, resulting in the cutting of his left thumb. He also received injuries on his fingers. On account of the impact of the injuries, there was a disability in so far as his left hand was concerned. The employer contested the claim of the respondent by submitting that the claimant was working as Store Lineman and therefore, did not come within the definition of “workman”. Learned Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant is a workman defined under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed in the claim application, if so to what effect ? On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Commissioner held that the claimant came within the definition of “workman” as accident had taken place during the duty hours and the duty was such, which had been entrusted to the claimant and he was working according to it. The claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs.7314.80 Ps. for the loss suffered by him, besides Rs.200/- as expenses and pleader's fee. Learned counsel for the appellants-employer has challenged the findings arrived at by learned Commissioner by contending that the claimant was not proved to be a workman and also that certificate mark FAO No.252 of 1984 -3- 'B' issued by Chief Medical Officer was not formally proved, as Chief Medical Officer was never examined as a witness by the claimant- respondent. It is the case of the claimant-respondent that he was working with S.D.O (Telephones), Sonepat and posted as a Store Lineman. It was his duty to supply the goods from the Store. While in the process of his official duty, a glass fell on his left hand, resulting into various injuries to him, including an injury on his left thumb, due to which it was cut. It has also come in evidence that the glass did not fall on account of any mistake on the part of the claimant, but fell suddenly on the left hand of the claimant. It was the duty of the claimant to take the goods and put them in the Store and as and when needed, to give the same to the concerned official(s). Gajender Kumar, who was examined by the employer as RW-1 admitted in his testimony that the claimant was Store Lineman in the Department and besides giving and taking of the goods, it was his duty to keep the goods in proper order. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the claimant was not a workman. It was his duty to handle the goods in the Store and while doing so, a glass fell on his left hand, resulting into various injuries to him. Regarding stand of the employer that certificate mark 'B' has not been formally proved, one may refer to the evidence available on the file itself, from which it is clear that as a result of falling of the glass on the left hand of the claimant, he received injuries on his fingers and thumb and as a result whereof, his left thumb was cut. That by itself was FAO No.252 of 1984 -4- sufficient to show the impact of the glass, hitting the left hand of the claimant. The employer has not claimed any where that no such certificate as mark 'B' had been issued by the Chief Medical Officer. Under these circumstance, it may be difficult to deny the compensation to the claimant and that too, when finding of fact had already been arrived at by learned Commissioner that the claimant received injuries on his left hand, on account of falling of the glass. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. September 17, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE