IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 183 of 2004() --------------------- WCC.32/2001 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: OPPO.PARTY: -------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S/OIL PALM INDIA LTD., MUTTAMBALAM P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SMT.PRIYA KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT: ----------------- A.RAJAPPAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARATHANDAKARA P.O. YEROOR VIA, ANCHAL KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.EBY GEORGE THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.183 of 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The opposite party, Employer, in W.C.C.No.32/2001, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner) Court, Kollam, is the appellant. Respondent is a workman employed by the appellant. He filed the petition claiming compensation alleging that on 18.4.1998, he sustained a personal injury by an accident arisen in the course of his employment. It was averred that on 18.4.1998, he lost his eye sight completely. His left eye was operated on May 1998 and he got back vision, but his right eye vision was lost for ever. It was averred that respondent sustained employment injury which is stated as rectinal detachment on the right eye On receipt of notice, appellant appeared and filed a written statement admitting the status of the respondent. The averment that the respondent lost his vision due to work was denied. It was contended that the applicant lost his right vision, and it was due to some other disease. The averment that after sustaining injury, respondent directly negotiated with the appellant was denied. The appellant underwent examination by a Medical Board who issued a MFA.No.183/2004 2 certificate stating that the respondent sustained 30% visual disability. He was examined by a Medical board attached to the District Hospital, Kollam and issued Ext.A2 certificate stating that respondent was having 30% disability due to rectinal detachment of right eye and Macular Degeneration of left eye. The respondent gave evidence. The Deputy Labour Commissioner found that the respondent sustained an employment injury on 18.4.1998, and on account of that employment injury, he lost his eye sight and directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.77,060/= with interest at the rate of 12%. Challenging that finding, this appeal is filed. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, respondent raised a preliminary objection that appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act can be maintained only on a substantial question of law. There cannot be any dispute regarding that legal preposition. So, the question arising for consideration is whether any substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. The finding of the Deputy Labour Commissioner is that appellant sustained an employment injury on 18.4.1998. The entire case proceeds on the assumption that the respondent sustained an employment injury on that day. There is yet another aspect also. MFA.No.183/2004 3 The disability certificate produced by the respondent shows that he sustained 30% visual disability. In Exts.A1 and A2, there is no finding to the effect that either he lost eye sight on any accident or he lost his vision. There is loss of one eye sight, and that too without any complications, the other being normal, the disability is assessed as 40%. If there is loss of vision of one eye, without complication or disfigurement of eye ball, the other being normal, the disability is 30%. Of course, both are scheduled injuries of Part-II of Scheduled I. The Deputy Labour Commissioner did not consider whether it is a case falling under clause 25 or 26 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. So substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The finding of the Deputy Labour Commissioner that respondent sustained an employment injury on 18.4.1998 is not based on pleadings or evidence. Even the respondent also has no such case. But his case was that he was doing the work of plucking oil palm seeds from oil palm trees, which is about 30 feet height, using chisel, and for that he need a lot of concentration. He was doing the work from 1982 onwards, and he had an attack of Catract on his right eye. It was operated in the year 1989. According to him, after operation, he was not having vision for his left eye, and since he was using right eye alone, there was strain and stress, and due to that lost vision of that MFA.No.183/2004 4 eye also. So, there is no averment or pleadings to the effect that respondent met with any accident or sustained any injury on that date. Whether the reasons stated by the respondent is sufficient to attract an employment injury was not considered by the Labour Commissioner. For that purpose, the case has to go back. Of course, the parties can adduce further evidence, if so advised. In the result, appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is set aside. W.C.C.No.32/2001 is remanded to that court. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is directed to take back the case and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, with due notice to both sides. Being an old case, the Deputy Labour Commissioner shall take every endeavor to dispose of the matter, within six months from the date of receipt of the records. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.