ARYA MUNI V.

UNION OF INDIA

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In the particular case, the appellant suffered a permanent damage to his right eye and claimed
compensation from his employer for the damage caused during the course of employment, to
which the respondent claimed exemption from the payment of compe4nsation under Section
3(1)(b) wherein the employer is not liable to pay compensation to the employee in case of
willful disobedience by the employee. The appellant claimed that the notice put up by the
employer was in English which he was incapable to understand, wherein the contention was
refuted by the respondent. It was observed in the precedent case of Bhut Nath Dal Mills v.
Tirath Mistry 1949, “It is said that the notice, if there was one, was printed in English and
Hindi. But what use an English notice would be to an ignorant and illiterate workman, I
cannot imagine. Further, if he did not read Hindi, it would also be of no use. Possibly, if the
notice had been in Bengali literate workmen would have been able to read it. But it is very
doubtful whether an average literate workman could read a notice in English or Hindi for that
matter. In any event the learned Commissioner finds that the workman was illiterate. So a
notice in any language was perfectly useless as far as he was concerned unless its contents
were expressly brought to his notice.” The case observed that “To bring a case within Sec.
3(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the workman must be in wilful disobedience of an order; mere
disobedience is not sufficient. Disobedience may be the result of forgetfulness or the result of
the impulse of the moment. Such would not be sufficient, as the Statute only exempts the
employer from liability when the disobedience is wilful, that is, deliberate and intended.”

CASE FACTS-
1. In the following case, the employee working in, Ordnance Factory Muradnagar,
District Meerut suffered a permanent loss of his eye sight while working in the factory
due to a spark rushing into his eye on 5 June, 1954.
2. The victim applied for compensation on 11 October, 1954. To which he was informed
after nearly two years on 12 February, 1957 by the employer stating, as the employee
had negligently not followed the instructions specified by the employer regarding
compulsory use of goggles while working.
3. The notice was put by the employer in English, to which the employee contended that
he had no knowledge of the same as he was not capable of reading the prescribed
language in the notice (English).
4. The appellant then moved forward with the current appeal in the year 1957.

ISSUES
 Whether the application put forward by the appellant was barred by Limitation?
 Whether the appellant had violated/disobeyed the orders prescribed by the employer
through the notice?

APPLICATION OF THE LAW

The employer contended that he was exempted from the payment of compensation to
the appellant as under Section 3(1)(b), of The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
states that an employer shall be exempted from the liability to compensate the
employee if the appellant had willfully disobeyed the orders of the employer. In order
to claim such provision it is upon the employer to prove not only negligence on part
 of the employee but rather also that the disobedience was willful and the order must
be expressed.

CONTENTIONS
 The respondent contended that the application by the appellant was not
permissible in the court as the appellant filed the complaint in the year 1957,
which was nearly two years after the said incident. And hence, the application
should not be allowed. Further, the respondent contended that the employee had
willfully disobeyed the orders prescribed by the employer regarding compulsory
use of goggles while working in the factory as the employer had evidently put up
a notice regarding the use of goggles by the employees. He also mentioned that
the employee had not acknowledged the notice nor did he ask for goggles from the
employer as the supervisor confirmed that the goggles were available in stock but
yet the employee had made no such demand.

 The appellant, in response to such allegations contended that the aforesaid notice
put by the respondent was in the English Language which was not readable or
understandable to him. He further also mentioned that the supervisor had at no
instance announced or requested the employees verbally to wear goggles and yet
the employee had demanded the goggles but did not receive them, to which the
respondent argued that if the employee as he says had demanded for the goggles
then he had to have knowledge of the notice and that he was in complete
understanding of the notice mentioned and yet willfully decided to disobey the
order given by the employer.

JUDGEMENT:

The respondent contended that the application put forward by the appellant was
barred by limitation as it was clear that the application was made nearly after two
years of the occurrence of the incident. The court observed that the employee had
been working in the factory even after the injury and after his claim for compensation
filed on 11 October, 1954 the contention that the employee did not file a complaint
merely because he had no grounds for proving the said claims is not true as he
received a reply from the employer not before 12 February, 1957 and merely waiting
for a response from his employer cannot be seen as an excuse. Further it was argued
by the respondent that the appellant had willfully disobeyed the order issued through
the notice, and that the appellant was completely capable and aware of the notice and
instructions displayed by the employer but yet negligently did not ask for the goggles,
the contention was supported by a witness stating that there were sufficient goggles
available and the employee would have received them if asked for it, and a document
showing the appellant’s signature in English. It was observed by the court that the fact
that the appellant was aware about the notice does not affirm the allegation that he
was aware in a general way about the specified details and requirements of the notice
and merely a signature in English does not prove that the appellant was capable of
reading and understanding the language. The commissioner favored the respondent
aggrieved by which, the appellant appealed in the higher court. The court observed
from the case, Bhurangya Coal Co. v. Sahebjan which stated that “A careful reading
of it shows that in order to bring a case under proviso (b)(ii) of Sec. 3(1) of the Act,
the company has to establish firstly, that an order or rule was in fact already in force
 at the time when the accident happened; secondly that the substantial purpose of that
rule or order was that of securing the safety of workman as such; thirdly, that the
order or rule was couched in words which in their face fairly and clearly indicated that
purpose; fourthly, that its terms were brought to the notice of the particular workman
who was the individual injured in this case; fifthly, that the order or rule was
disobeyed by that individual, sixthly that the disobedience of the rule or order by that
individual was wilful and deliberate and not only the result of mere negligence or due
to a mistaken mode of doing a particular task or due to a wrong decision in an
emergency; seventhly, that the accident was directly attributable to the aforesaid
disobedience. In the present case not only that the evidence on the very existence of
the rule or order is not at all sufficient as already stated but also that there is no
evidence whatsoever, on element other then that.” As seen in the case, it was
concluded that there was not enough evidence affirming the said facts contended by
both the parties and that the commissioner had arrived to the decision merely based on
findings of the fact and the court reversed the order in favour of the appellant making
the respondent liable to pay the compensation amount which shall be determined by
the court.

ANALYSIS
The judgement sets an important precedent for the future as it clearly shows that an
employee is liable to receive compensation for any kind of damage done to him
during the course of employment. The judgement responds to all the issues in the
case, Firstly, that involved the question of limitation of the case filed which was
addressed clearly by the judge stating that the appellant had reasonable cause to not
file the complaint against the respondent and waiting for a reply from the employer
does not direct towards the fact that the appellant had no proof of the incidents.
Secondly, the respondent claimed exemption under Section 3(1)(b) wherein he is not
liable to pay compensation to an employee when the damage occurred is due to his
willful disobedience, as mentioned above the court here observed that the appellant
was bound to receive compensation even though there was not much corroborative
evidence to support the contentions of both the parties.
The judgement is very consistent with the reasoning in the precedent cases as in the
case of Bhut Nath Dal Mills v. Tirat mistry, it was stated that a notice put up in a
different language not readable by the employee is equal to not putting the notice at
all, on basis of which the judge declared that putting the notice in English which the
employee is incapable to understand and the fact that the employee was aware about
the instructions in general cannot affirm the fact that the employee was aware about
the details of the notice. Again, in the case of Bhurangya Coal Co. v. Sahebjaan it was
held that to bring into account exemption under Section 3(1)(b), it is upon the
employer to prove willful disobedience on behalf of the employee and here, the
employer tried to prove willful disobedience through witness and documents but the
evidence was not sufficient to corroborate the claim. Another important case which
can be referred is Ramarao Zingraji Shinde v. Indian yarn Manf Co., it was held that
the employee even though had disobeyed the orders of the employee that were clearly
stated yet received the compensation required for the damage caused to him during
the course of employment. Similarly in the above case, there was no enough
corroborative evidence to support the claims of both the parties, yet the judge ruled in
favor of the appellant and granted him compensation.
OUR TAKE ON THE CASE
In our opinion the judgement is reasonable as even though there wasn’t sufficient
evidence to support the claims but the appellant had suffered a permanent damage
during his course of employment and should be compensated by the employer, as no
person is bound to suffer such a huge loss for an incapability to read and understand a
particular language. Although, another conflicting opinion suggests that the employee
when has clearly stated that he was aware about the goggles even without reading the
notice should have asked and worn the goggles and he himself corroborated the
damage caused to him, the response to which the judge stated that it was the duty of
the employer to know whether his workmen are binding by the rules of safety and if
not, it was his duty to provide them with the same, which again brings us to the
conclusion that the employer shall be liable to compensate the employee.

CONCLUSION
As we have seen above, the case affirms towards the fact that even though there is not
enough evidence supporting the claim of the appellant he was bound to receive
compensation as he had suffered a permanent damage during the course of
employment. And a number of precedent cases as mentioned above mention the same
and hence, we can conclude that the importance of the workers safety and their
interests has been put to more importance than the facts and the circumstances of the
cases and that the damage caused to the workers is of utmost importance.