Skip to content


Parsu Dhondi Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Reference No. 18 for 1928
Judge
Reported in(1929)31BOMLR1304
AppellantParsu Dhondi
RespondentThe Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Excerpt:
workmen's compensation act (viii of 1923), section 2 (1)(n), schudle 11, item 5-ln-juiry to workmen-compensation.;the joint effect of section 2(1)(n) and schudle ii, item 5, of the workmen's compensation act 1923, is that the workman, who claims compensation for injuiry to him, must be employed for the purpose of loading, unloading or coaling any ship. a workman, employed to unload bales from a railway wagon standing in a dock and to take them to a shed adjoining the wharf, is not entitled to compensation if he receives injury while stocking the balea in the shed. - .....intended to include a man, injured while engaged in preparations for the purpose of ultimately, loading bales on to a ship, in fact the same argument might be used to apply to the case of every person engaged in working on such bales at any one of the many steps which intervene from where the bales are pressed in the mill to where they are stacked ready for loading into a ship, and it is clear that a line must be drawn somewhere. i think that the meaning of the term used is clear, and that protection under the act is meant for the workmen who are actually engaged in the process of handling the bales, so as to transfer them from the wharf to the hold of a ship which is actually being loaded. but the workman in question was only stacking the bales in a shed and it does not appear that.....
Judgment:

Murphy, J.

1. The workman in this case was injured while stacking certain bales in a shed alongside the wharf in the Victoria Docks, Bombay. It is contended before us that the words 'for the purpose of' unloading, loading, &c;, which are to be found in Schedule II (5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act VIII of 1923, should be interpreted very liberally, and as implying a wider meaning than had the word 'in' been used in their place. But it seems to me that such a meaning cannot be read into them and that the expression 'for the purpose of' used in this connection means the same thing as 'in' and that other words would have been used had it been intended to include a man, injured while engaged in preparations for the purpose of ultimately, loading bales on to a ship, In fact the same argument might be used to apply to the case of every person engaged in working on such bales at any one of the many steps which intervene from where the bales are pressed in the mill to where they are stacked ready for loading into a ship, and it is clear that a line must be drawn somewhere. I think that the meaning of the term used is clear, and that protection under the Act is meant for the workmen who are actually engaged in the process of handling the bales, so as to transfer them from the wharf to the hold of a ship which is actually being loaded. But the workman in question was only stacking the bales in a shed and it does not appear that the ship which was to carry them was then being loaded. I agree with the answer proposed by the learned Chief Justice to the question in the reference and think that the claimant cannot be awarded compensation in this case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //