M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES versus RAM CHANDER PRADHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 14-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES 
v. 
RAM CHANDER PRADHAN AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Claim under-Contention that 
C only those persons who are employed in a factory within the meaning of the 
factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act-Propriety of-Held, for the Workmen's Compensation Act 
to apply it is not necessary that the workman should be working in a factory 
as defined in the Factories Act-Workmen's Compensation Act merely clarifies 
D that persons employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in any premise 
wherein a manufacturing process defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the 
Factory Act is carried on, are workmen-Significantly the definition of the 
term 'factory' as appearing in the Factories Act, has not been incorporated 
in the Workmen's Compensation Act-Sections 2(n)(ii), 30, Schedule II item 
II-Factories Act, 1948-Sections 2(k), 2(m). 
E 
Appellant, a sole proprietory concern, ran its workshop of shaping steel 
sheets into various shapes and forms. The 1st respondent at the relevant time 
was working as a press operator with the appellant. He sustained injuries to 
his right index finger and thumb while working on a press as a result of 
F which his right index finger was amputated. 
G 
H 
The 1st respondent filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation 
Act claiming compensation which was allowed. The appellant preferred an 
appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before High 
Court which was dismissed in limine. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Workmen's 
Compensation Act did not apply to the appellant's establishment; that a joint 
reading of Section 2(n)(ii) and Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation 
Act, 1923 and Sections 2(k) and 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 makes it 
clear that even for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act only 
576. 
SUNIL INDUSTRIES v. RAM CHANDER PRADHAN [VARIAVA, J.] 577 
those persons who are employed in a factory within the meaning of the A 
Factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : t. It is true that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has B 
been amended on a number of occasions. However, inspite of numerous 
amendments the Legislature has purposely omitted to specifically provide that 
only a workman who is employed in a factory, as defined in the Factories Act, 
could make a claim. All that has been done is that in Schedule II of the 
Workmen's Compensation Act it is inter-alia clarified that persons employed, C 
otherwise than in a clerical capacity in any premises wherein a manufacturing 
process as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 is 
carried on, are workmen. Significantly, the definition of the term "Factory" 
as appearing in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 has not 
been incorporated in !he Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus it is clear that 
for the Workmen's Compensation Act to apply it is not necessary that the D 
workman should be working in a Factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948. 
It has not been denied that the workshop of the Appellant would fall under 
clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the 1st Respondent 
would be a Workman within the meaning of the term as defined in the 
Workmen's Compensation Act. (579-B-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in F.A.O. No. 827 of 1997. 
Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant. 
The Jugdment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th May, 1997 
by which the first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
The appellant is a sole proprietory concern. It runs its workshop of 
shaping steel sheets into various shapes and forms. The lst Respondent was, 
E 
F 
G 
at the relevant time, working as a press operator with the Appellant. On 27th 
January, 1993 while working on a press, the lst Respondent sustained injuries H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS L2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A to his right index finger and thumb. The Appellant rushed the I st Respondent 
to the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon (Haryana). The injuries necessitated 
ampu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.