Skip to content


Johra Bibi Vs. B.i.S.N. Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Cal113
AppellantJohra Bibi
RespondentB.i.S.N. Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....order of dismissal, this appeal has been brought.4. for the respondent, it is contended that no appeal lies. as the accident in question occurred in liverpool, and as the workmen's compensation act extends only to the whole of british india, including british baluchistan and the santhal parganas, and presumably territorial waters adjacent thereto, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of the commissioner, workmen's compensation, bengal to award compensation must have been conferred upon him otherwise than under the workmen's compensation act. it has been shown to us that under the merchant shipping act, 1923, there must be an agreement entered into before a shipping master in respect of every seaman who is taken on in india. we have been shown a specimen copy of the kind of agreement.....
Judgment:

Lodge, J.

1. This is an appeal which purports to be under the provisions of Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act (8 [VIII] of 1923). The material facts are as follows. One Nur Mohammad, a seaman on board S.S. 'Lancashire,' met his death on 6th February 1945, while the ship was at Liverpool. On 19th February 1946, his widow Zohora Bibi applied to the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, for compensation in respect of this death praying that she was entitled to a lump sum payment of Rs. 3500, and requesting that an award of this amount be made. Her applicetion was resisted by Messrs. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co., Managing Agents of Messrs. B.I.S.N. Co. Ltd., who contended that the death was not the result of any accident but was due to natural causes.

2. The only witness examined in the case was one Fatey Hossain who deposed as follows:

Nur Mohammad died on Tuesday, 6th February 1945, at Liverpool on board S.S. 'Lancashire.' I was mate Khansama. Nur Mohammad was carrying a bag of potato from godown to the deck weighing 1 to 2 maunds. He stumbled and fell on the deck. He expired at once. I saw the whole occurrence.

3. On this evidence, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, held that the accident through fall could not have been the cause of death, and that death must have been due to some disease, and he dismissed the application. Against the order of dismissal, this appeal has been brought.

4. For the respondent, it is contended that no appeal lies. As the accident in question occurred in Liverpool, and as the Workmen's Compensation Act extends only to the whole of British India, including British Baluchistan and the Santhal Parganas, and presumably territorial waters adjacent thereto, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal to award compensation must have been conferred upon him otherwise than under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It has been shown to us that under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, there must be an agreement entered into before a Shipping master in respect of every seaman who is taken on in India. We have been shown a specimen copy of the kind of agreement into which each seaman enters. It is apparent that each seaman does enter into an agreement before the Shipping master, and in that agreement, it is provided that compensation for injury should be awarded; and if the parties do not agree as to the amount to be awarded, the parties undertake to abide by the award of the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act and agree that the decision of the Commissioner should be final. It seems to us clear that the order of the Commissioner in the present case must have been passed by virtue of some jurisdiction conferred upon him by agreement rather than of a jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Such being the case, his order was the order of an arbitrator in arbitration proceedings, and there is nothing to indicate that an appeal lies from such an order. We are of the opinion that no appeal lies in the present case. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. We make no order as to costs in this Court.

Amin Ahmed, J.

5. I agree.


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