Skip to content


Tobacco Manufactures (India) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Marian Stewart - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.O.O. No. 29 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Cal164
ActsWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 3(1); ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32
AppellantTobacco Manufactures (India) Ltd.
RespondentMrs. Marian Stewart
Appellant AdvocateBhabes Narain Bose, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNoni Coomar Chakraborti and ;Sukrity Ganguly, Advs.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredSt. Helens Colliery Ltd. v. Hewitson
Excerpt:
- .....stewart was a mechanic employed by messrs. tobacco ., (who is the employer,) in its kidderpore factory. stewart lived in howrah and had to attend the factory at 8 in the morning, on 10th april 1947, he was going to work riding a bicycle. he was knocked down by a lorry belonging to the civil supplies, government of west bengal, near princep's memorial and received injuries. stewart died on 13th april 1947 from the injuries. his widow claimed compensation from the employer on the ground that the accident arose in course of and out of the employment.3. the law is well established that the workman in order to be entitled to the compensation, should be acting in the course of his employment, that is to say, when he is doing something in discharge of a duty to his employer directly or.....
Judgment:

S.N. Banerjee, J.

1. This is an appeal by the employer from an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, awarding compensation against the employer to the widow of the deceased workman in the following circumstances.

2. One Lionel Henry Stewart was a mechanic employed by Messrs. Tobacco ., (who is the employer,) in its Kidderpore Factory. Stewart lived in Howrah and had to attend the Factory at 8 in the morning, On 10th April 1947, he was going to work riding a bicycle. He was knocked down by a lorry belonging to the Civil Supplies, Government of West Bengal, near Princep's Memorial and received injuries. Stewart died on 13th April 1947 from the injuries. His widow claimed compensation from the employer on the ground that the accident arose in course of and out of the employment.

3. The law is well established that the workman in order to be entitled to the compensation, should be acting in the course of his employment, that is to say, when he is doing something in discharge of a duty to his employer directly or indirectly imposed upon him by his contract of service. The word ''employment' covers and includes things belonging to or arising out of it: St. Helens Colliery Ltd. v. Hewitson, 1924 A.C. 59.

4. The learned Commissioner found that the employer gave the bicycle to Stewart to secure his punctual attendance at the factory, and the workman was bound to use the bicycle. And the route by which the deceased went was a recognised and permissible route. According to him, therefore, the accident arose in the coarse of the employment and out of it.

5. The learned Commissioner reached his conclusion relying on a statement made by the widow in her evidence before the Commissioner that she had heard from her husband that the bicycle had been given to him by his employer, because otherwise he might be late in attending the factory.

6. In our opinion, this evidence is hearsay. It does not come within any of the Sub-sections of Section 32, Evidence Act. Therefore, it is inadmissible. There is no other evidence to support the finding of the Commissioner that the bicycle was supplied by the employer to the deceased for doing his duty. Therefore, the Commissioner's finding is wrong in law. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order.

7. The employer's counsel did not ask for costs of this appeal against the widow. So, there will be no order as to costs.

Harries, C.J.

I agree.


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