The Divisional Forest Officer vs Sri Nagappa S/O Kadappa on 6 February, 2010

O'  C_HICK|V.AGALUR DISTRICT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 67" DAY OF FEBRUfZY 2010'. 

BEFORE O N'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.NISATYA!\!..'¥§K>i£<

I  T  THIS MFA FILED U/SEC 30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST
 *f-.H_E"j_«ORDER DATED 11.10.2002 PASSED IN WCA/NF-
 AB/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND

COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-

 '"DIVISION-1, CHICKMAGALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION
A OF RS.2,08,SO6/-- WITH INTEREST @ 12% RA. AND

""'\



 hereLi:nde~r:

DIRECTING THE APPELLANTS HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE
SAME,ETc,

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL 

THIS DAY, MAf\3}UNATH.J. DELIVERED THE FOLLQ"V"v'*IN:'G_;!'--..' _._ 

JuDGEMENTs__

This is respondents' appeai chaiienging It.he:'

and award dated 11-10-2005 in Nd:.yvcA/EF/46/2oo2S

passed by the commi.5:s;.Q_ner"A.f§fVi.:iiy'dVri<njen co'm'pensation,
Chickmagaiur, awarding in a sum
of Rs.2,O8,5O5g/4Vdgi1th  of 12% from the
30" day cf the basdnd ck Ida award an the date of

reaiisation  I' ' = 
2.  VViac'ts.»ie'_ading to this appeal are as

 is respondent herein, who is said to be

timber c,ia'tter.-- iivorking under the appeiiants herein. That on

S""«.__V*»1A8vO1¥2§§S01, while he was cutting the tree in the forest area

.Aifd'ur he feii down and suffered injuries to the left side of

._h__i§s body, ie., fracture to ieft hand and leg, which has

Vh



award passed by the court below on the following
substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether the Commissioner has come to.---.,

the conciusion that the accident was occurred».s:"««.y'_i'~i.

during the course of employment and the   

is justified in law?

(b) Whether the court beiow i-.'_s_°*j'iustified_:--'»inx  

awarding compensaho-n_.V 'without  
documentary evidence' regardmgii  tine 
reiationship of emp!.oyer,a'r'idiiVen{p~ii.g'yee"ar'i'd the
same isjustified in'"iafiv\'?'~.   

(cv) """ "V'i!-hetheiriifiij"thei.V_:Labou'r'"'*'Commissioner is
justified the documentary
evidence of» the :.ern:oVi5Io.yer and the same is
Ajustifieiud'  iaw?"'. '' "

   matter the entire triai court record was

secured an'di?'iar'guments were heard. Thereafter, this court

 "._proceedvt'o answer the aforesaid substantial questions of iaw

  "ifi'h.t:he~_.affirmative for the foiiowing reasons.
a _ _ _ WV'



'4';

6. Factually, in this proceedings the appeiiants

herein have not disputed the fact of accident andVV.i'ni"urries

suffered by the claimant in the said accident;""'it§,ji~s'._:aiso".y

interesting to note that the accident is take-n..A4_jp'ia'ce::within  

the reserved forest area. Assurning...sfoZr"mo.m'e'n.t the'

claimant is not an employee of the ap'pe|'I"ants ;iierxe.i:n,  had_°;

no right or business to cut anycitfrieegwgin fftiieffiforesft. Under
these circumstances, he._.":s:h'o.;;|d;V--_h';,:«¢_e».»..fA5«gen treated as an
trespasser into the  attempting to
commit thef.t_s'i's*":seen that no such
proceeding   against the claimant
herein for  Thereby they admit that
the claimant  with their permission and he

was_{:a"rryingV t»h,eracti\}ity of cutting the tree under their

 igAnSt_f'LiCtiu0iAfi. _ 

 _f.'V'v'I'in..'the proceedings before the trial Court the

"i.,cIaimant"'has produced documents to show the nature of

":f:i_n._iuri'es that he has suffered and the treatment that was

 taken by him for the said injuries. He has also produced

 necessary documents issued by the competent doctor to

"""\



(1

show the nature of injuries and the extent of disability'

suffered by him. At the same time the claimant ha:s"'»also

examined two independent witnesses who 

along with him at the time of the acciden.t_l:...,,pl(jIEfi.itlted'ly#K2i,.,,

those two persons were also enigaged 

herein for the purpose of cutti'ng the"'t_re'es anrdiu-lii,»he evideril-:e"~.r

of the said two witnesses as  is not
denied or challenged  aijpprelrllajintsnhereinleading either
oral or documentary e\v/i.d.e:nc.e  iesl'.ab'lisVh,rr--.t-hat the claimant
and the  imeiiemployees working

under  7». 

 I It  fact that the forest officers do

appoint ther.ca~sual._ |a~bl'o'uru, daily wagers to carryout menial

;_~.I.ike_ felling---,----..««conversion extraction, regeneration,

 and buildings, etc. As could be seen from

thelllkarnatallraz Forest Code it is very clear about the rights of

 the Forest Officers to get the said works done by casual and

  wage employees. In this proceedings, on behalf of the

 appeliants one of its official, namely, Mr. S.R. Prasanna

Kumar, Range Forest Officer has given evidence. The said

'"""\



person is the person incharge of the registers containing the
names of casual and daily wage employees. Nothing

prevented this person to produce the said register"ats"-wefllvvas

the register maintained by them for petty cash 

wherein the casual and daily wage''em'p'i.oyee:s'Vi'were}pa'i»d '

with the wages as and when thely;_ar-elpA'empi'oyed,«.

that claimant was not emplo'ye'd..y'by the. at any"

point of time to do any work" w_i'thVih._the'«af'oresaid range
forest area and that his iisijnot in any of those

registers.
9. ""   cilié.-a~rly'.lhdicate's" that sufficient opportunity
was av'aiyiaoiei to'tiie.%Va»pgoeii:i:aote herein before the trial Court

to estabfis'h"by"dVoc.urri.ent~aVry evidence that the claimant was

""«.._'not:o.jwo;r.ltii:g unAd'erv------t-hem which they have not utilised. On

the "cori'trary~,.Vg'ti1.e claimant has not only given oral evidence

to show he was working under the appellants herein as

casual employee by examining two independent witnesses,

":lf'wVho"*r_were working in the forest along with him under the

 appellants herein at the relevant time. He has also

W .



produced evidence to show that while working so the

respondent has suffered the aforesaid injuries.

10. Under these circumstances, the  "

Commissioner for Worl<men's Con*i'p'enlsa'*_,ion.'ha.s "righti.,«

aliowed the claim petition filed by the

appreciation of pleadings, oral~._:and documehtaryfuévidiencei"

available on record. well reas'o--ns_e-dbvV";1udgrnen~t  award
passed by the triai Court 'does--'noL"t ;i:a|_lfoizinterference in this
appeal. Hence, «rh:e':~appeai:»i's'V.disn1~ii,s3eVd' v\:rit'hout any order as

to costs.

The  "dyVe'p.,osi.t,.' if any, is ordered to be

released 'in.favour.of".ti:e'reVsp'ondent forthwith.

 .....  

Eudge