Broad construction of occupational disease coverage: use of lead in printing work brought chronic lead poisoning within compensation law.

A prior statutory reference to the Factories Act, 1934 was construed as a reference to the Factories Act, 1948 under Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, because the earlier enactment had been repealed and re-enacted and no contrary intention appeared. On that basis, the employee was treated as a workman. The occupational disease provisions were also read broadly: "any process involving the use of lead" was held not to be confined to manufacturing or transformation, and an impositor's work arranging and fixing lead bars for printing was treated as a real use of lead within Schedule III. The lead poisoning was therefore covered by Section 3(2), and compensation was payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference in the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Factories Act, 1934 had to be read as a reference to the Factories Act, 1948 for determining whether the appellant was a workman; (ii) Whether the appellant's duties as an impositor amounted to an employment specified in Schedule III so as to bring chronic lead poisoning within Section 3(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the reference in the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Factories Act, 1934 had to be read as a reference to the Factories Act, 1948 for determining whether the appellant was a workman.

Analysis: The earlier factories statute was repealed and re-enacted by the later enactment, and by virtue of the general rule of construction embodied in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, a reference in a prior statute to the repealed Act is to be construed as a reference to the re-enacted Act unless a contrary intention appears. The subsequent repealing and amending legislation did not destroy that result, because it did not revive the repealed statute or displace the continued operation of the substitutionary reference.

Conclusion: The appellant was correctly treated as a workman.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's duties as an impositor amounted to an employment specified in Schedule III so as to bring chronic lead poisoning within Section 3(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Analysis: Section 3(2) creates a compensable deeming rule for occupational diseases specified in Schedule III, while Section 3(4) limits recovery outside that scheme. On the proper construction of the relevant entry, the expression "any process involving the use of lead" is not confined to manufacturing operations that transform lead into another form; the word "use" is of wide import, and the Schedule itself shows that process and handling are not mutually exclusive. The appellant's work was not mere carrying or passive handling, but an intelligent operation in which lead bars were arranged and fixed for printing, and that activity involved use of lead within the meaning of the Schedule.

Conclusion: The appellant's disease fell within Section 3(2) read with Schedule III, and compensation was payable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the compensation claim succeeded on the footing that the appellant was a workman and that his lead poisoning was an occupational disease covered by the statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A broad construction must be given to the occupational disease provisions, and an employment may fall within a Schedule III entry where the work involves a real use of the relevant substance, even if the work also consists of handling it.

---