Judgment:
B.K. Sangalad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.3.1994 passed in WCA. SR No. 182 of 1992 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bijapur.
2. On behalf of his minor son Basaiah, the respondent 1-Rachiah Basaiah Ganachari filed the application for the compensation on 11.1.1991 stating that his son Basaiah was working in the harvesting machine under respondent 2. On 24.9.1988, while his son was working in the machine his right hand was stuck in the machine. As such, he was treated and ultimately it had to be amputated at shoulder joint. It is also stated that the injured boy was earning Rs. 900/- per month.
3. For the claimants boy himself is examined and Exs. Al to A4 are marked. Dr. S.V. Shirol, Orthopaedic Surgeon/Government Hospital, Bijapur is also examined. Ex. A5 is the case paper produced by the doctor. After hearing the arguments, the compensation of Rs. 81,496/- is awarded.
4. The appellant herein being aggrieved by this award has preferred this appeal on the ground that the boy was 13 years. As such, he could not have been employed in view of the Child Labour Act. It is further contended that the Commissioner also has failed to notice that the reason of minor boy aged about 13 years was not governed under the Workmen's Compensation Policy issued by the appellant.
5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Khannur, learned Counsel for the respondent 1 submitted that there is no prohibition to employ the child for such of the works which are not enumerated in the Child Labour Act. This argument is endorsed by Mr. B.S. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent 2.
6. In view of the rival intentions, now it is to be seen whether the Workmen's Compensation Act is applicable to the children who are engaged for such of the works which are not governed Under Schedules A and B of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act nowhere states that there is a prohibition to employ a child, According to the definition under Section 2 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, 'Child' means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of the age. Admittedly in the case on hand, the boy was 13 years old. Hence, he was a child as on the date of the accident. But Section 3 of the same Act clearly states that a child may be employed for each of the works which are not covered under Parts A and B. To make it very clear, Section 3 is reproduced:
3. Prohibition of employment of children in certain occupations and processes.-No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part B of the Schedule is carried on:Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any workshop wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from Government.
7. Section 3 also makes it further clear that a child should never be employed. A check is that a child cannot be employed for such act which comes under Parts A and B. In view of Section 3 and in the absence of any specific prohibition under the Workmen's Compensation Act it can be very well held that child can be employed to carry out the work provided this work does not come under the Parts A and B of the Schedule of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
8. It is an admitted fact that there is an amputation of the right hand at the shoulder joint. So, the disability is 90%. Hence, the Commissioner has awarded the compensation of Rs. 81,496/-. There are no grounds to interfere with this award. Hence the following order:
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.