THE PROBLEM

In this particular case of Surendra Shambhu Yadav Versus Krishna Flour Mills filed in the year 2008 in the Honurable Labour Commisioner of Gujarat deals with the labour related issue. The problem is that the applicant Surendra Shambhu Yadav c/o. Gujarat Janvadi Kamdar Union, Vorajini Chali Hirawadi Ahmedabad files a case against Krishna Flour Mills, Phase-1, Plot No.37-A, GIDC, Vatva, TA-Sanand District-Ahemedabad for compensation under The Workmen Compensation Act. FACTS 1. The applicant used to work in the flour mill since November 2007. 2.150 workers used to work in the factory. 3. All the workers working there were given accommodation in the factory itself. Applicant along with his brother Ramavtar used to live there. 4. The work in the factory used to be done in 2 shifts. First shift used to start from 7 am in the morning till 7 pm in the evening and the second shift used to start from 7 pm in the night till 7am in the morning. 5. The workers who were the part of first shift were not the residents of Gujarat moreover the age group was between 18-20. The owner of the factory used to exploit the workers of this shift. 6. The workers were not paid adequately. 7. The workers were not given any ID card or the pay slip which could tell the workers belonged to the particular factory. 8. On 3rd of January 2008 both the brothers were working in the shift of 7 am to 7 pm. The applicant was asked by the supervisor of the factory Dilip to clean the machinery on the second floor which was outside his working hours while doing so the applicants half pants got entangled in the machines and as the rollers were moving fast his right leg also got struck in the rollers which imputed his leg into three parts. 9. All the other workers advanced their help and took him to the Shilpa hospital wich was situated nearby. 10. After that the manager of the factory gave assurance that all the expenses of the hospital and compensation for the imputed leg would be given on a condition that he would file the panchnama as per their wish and in case of his failure to do so he would not be given any compensation or expenses. 11. Therefore under the pressure the applicant filed the panchnama as per the wish of the manager since he was not financially strong and could not bear the expenses of the hospital.

12. It came as a shock to the victim that while the panchanam was being read the facts of the given case were distorted. It read as the victim was not the worker of the factory and only his brother used to work there. He just came to give the lunch to his brother and accidentally a machine got on by him and his leg got struck in it. 13. In the initial two days Shilpa Hospital only did bandage to the victim and no proper treatment was given and later he was referred to VS hospital where due to gangrene his leg had to be cut from thigh. The hospital fees and the medical expense of Rs 50,000 which were to be paid by the factory were also not given. Moreover the manager and the owner of the factory along with other authorities forged the relevant documents. 14. Therefore the applicant claims compensation on the basis he would not be able to work in the future due to permanent disability. 15. The amount of the compensation asked was Rs 75,000 as the expenditure of the hospital along with 12% interest and compensation for disablement 7lac 13thousand approximately.

ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether there was a relationship of workman and owner between the aggrieved and the owner of the factory. 2. Whether the accident had took place during his shift or not. 3. Whether the age of the worker was below 18. 4. To determine the monthly wages of the worker at the time of the accident in case it is proved that he was a worker of the factory. 5. Whether the aggrieved is entitled to get compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. 6. Whether he is entitled to claim interest on the expenditure incurred.

RELEVANT FACTORS
The key facts or the highlights of this case from the given facts are: 1. The owner of the factory used to exploit the workers. 2. No ID cards were given to the workers which could determine whether the worker belonged to the factory or not. 3. The aggrieved was asked by the supervisor to clean the machinery outside his work hours as his shift starts from 7am and ends at 7pm whereas cleaning of machinery asked by Dilip was beyond his work hours which lead to the accident. 4. Undue influence by the manager of the factory on the aggrieved for filing the panchnama according to their wish. 5. The facts of the panchnama were distorted which read that he was not the worker of the factory. 6. No compensation as well as medical expenses given even after the assurance and their conditions. 7. Forging of documents by the manager and the owner of the factory along with other authorities.

OUTCOME
This particular case of Surendra Shambhu Yadav Versus Krishna Flour Mills is still an ongoing case before the Honourable Labour Commissioner at Ahmadabad and so the judgement has not come and further no legal action has been taken against the owner of the factory as per now

Though the case is still going on but this case clearly shows how the owners of the factory exploit workers to meet their own needs. They even use their position to suppress the workers and dominate them for their own profits. Moreover, they use their position and use undue influence over the workers so that they do not have to bear any loses or any harm to the reputation of the factory is caused. In this particular case firstly the owners forged the documents along with other authorities and then denied the fact that the aggrieved was a worker of their own factory so that they do not have to bear the victims medical expenditure as well as compensate hm. Further, it is seen that the workers to fulfil their needs and due to their helplessness do not raise voice for themselves and get influenced by the position and fake promises of their employers who just exploit them and use their skills to make their profits. Thus, this case is also refers to a major social problem of the society where the employers exploit the workers for their own needs and hardly pay workers according to their labour and skill. This social issue of the society is a major problem where the upper class suppresses the worker class and hence the workers should understand their rights and must be compensated and paid well for their jobs.

ANALYSIS
According to me this case of Surendra Shambhu Yadav Versus Krishna Flour Mills for compensation for sustaining injuries which lead to permanent disability of Shambhu falls under the scope and applicability of Workmen Compensation Act 1923. Since it is an ongoing case if it is proved that Shambhu is a worker of Krishna Flour Mills and he sustained injuries in the factory leading to permanent disability then under workmen compensation act he is entitled to compensation as: Firstly, Objectives The Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, aims to provide workmen and/or their dependents some relief in case of accidents, arising out of and in the course of employment and causing either death or disablement of workmen. Secondly, Employees Entitled Every employee (including those employed through a contractor but excluding casual employee), who is engaged for the purposes of employer's business and who suffers an injury in any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, shall be entitled for compensation under the Act. Thirdly, Disablement Injury caused to a workman by an accident ordinarily results in the loss of the earning capacity of the workman concerned and this loss of earning capacity is technically "disablement". Disablements can be classified as (a).Total and (b) Partial. It can further be classified into (i) Permanent, and (ii) temporary,, Disablement, whether permanent or temporary is said to be total when it incapacitates a worker for all work he was capable of doing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. Fourthly, Accident Compensation-when payable The employer of any establishment covered under this Act, is required to compensate an employee (a) who has suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting into (i) death, (ii) permanent total disablement, (iii) permanent partial disablement, or (iv) temporary disablement whether total or partial, or (b) who has contracted an occupational disease. Fifthly, Accident Report Where the accident results in death or serious bodily injury, the employer should send a report to the Commissioner, within 7 days of the accident, in the prescribed from giving the circumstances attending the death or serious bodily injury. and lastly, Amount of Compensation The amount of compensation payable by the employer shall be calculated as follows:

(a) In case of death : 50% of the monthly wages x Relevant Factor or Rs. 50.000/-, whichever is more and Rs. 1000 for funeral expenses. (b) In case of total permanent disablement specified under Schedule I, 60% of the monthly wages x Relevant Factor or Rs. 60,000/- whichever is more. (c) In case of partial permanent disablement specified under Schedule I, Such percentage of the compensation payable in case (b) above as is the percentage of the loss in earning capacity (specified in Schedule I) (d) In case of partial permanent disablement not specified under Schedule I, such percentage of compensation is payable in case (b) above, as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity ( as assessed by a qualified medical practitioner). (e) In case of temporary disablement (whether total or partial), A half-monthly instalment equal to 25% of the monthly wages, for the period of disablement or 5 years, whichever is shorter. Thus, according to me Shambhu is entitled for compensation for sustaining injuries if proved that he is a worker of the factory. The owner of the factory cannot deny his duties and obligations towards his worker. Furthermore action for the acts of the manager as well as the owner of the factory for using undue influence over the worker as well as forging the documents should be taken separately.