TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engineer, Rural Division, Ahmednagar. Those ledger books were urgently required in the office of Sub-Division, Pathardi where at the relevant time, the appellant was working. The nagar at about 5.00 p.m. He went in the Divisional Account's Office and asked for the ledger books. The ledger books were not available in that office. He was, therefore, advised to enquire with the office of Urban Division. Ahmednagar. The appellant accordingly, went to the office of Urban Division, Ahmadnagar, but he was asked to come on 19-10-1985, he went to the office of Urban Division at about 8.35 a.m. to collect the leader books. He collected ledger books and he was proceeding to Pathardi. He had kept the ledger books on his bicycle. On his way, the ledger books fell on the ground from his bicycle. While keeping the ledger books on the carrier of his bicycle, a spring of bicycle sprung and hit his left eye. There was an injury to his eye, for which he was required to be admitted in hospital at Ahmednagar. 3. The case of the appellant is that he suffered injury i.e., loss of vision by his left eye in the course of his employment with the respondent-Board and, therefore, he was entitled to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsation Act, 1923. By the impugned order, the authority below directed that the application be returned to the appellant for presentation before the proper authority. 8. Shri Gursahani, learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged that the view taken by the authority below is contrary view taken by the authority below is contrary to law and is otherwise unjust and improper. The learned counsel argued that the appellant is Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by virtue of provision contained in Section 38-A of the Bombay Act. Section 38-A of the Bombay Act, inter alia provides that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Rules framed from time to time thereunder are 'mutatis mutandis' applicable to employees of an establishment to which the Act applies as it they were workmen within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent-Board is an establishment covered under Schedule II at Sr. No. 102 except Sections 35, 36, 37 and 62 of the Bombay Act. The word 'employee' as defined in Section 2(6) of the Bombay Act means "a person wholly or principally employed, whether directly or t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kmen's Compensation Act, 1923 so as to entitle him to compensation from his employer, for personal injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The long title is set out at the head of the Statute-Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and gives a fairly full description of the general purpose of the Act : for instance, "...... An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theatres, other places of public amusement or entertainment and other establishments......" There is no dispute that the establishment of respondent-Board is an establishment covered under the Bombay Act. The respondent-Board is included as an establishment at Sr. No. 102 in schedule II of the Bombay Act. Schedule II also contains a provision to exempt certain sections of the Act. viz., Sections 35, 36, 37 and 62, which deal with provisions relating to leave with pay and payment of wages to employees and Section 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 in case of outdoor staff and watchmen, subject to the condition that the employees concerned a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applied to the proceedings under section 364(1) regard of course, being had to the nature and the scope of the proceedings to which it has to be applied". "(Per Sarkar, J) : The works 'mutatis mutandis' mean with the necessary changes being made'. Some changes in Section 363(2) are considered by the Legislature necessary, when it is applied to a proceeding instituted under Section 364. In other words, some changes must be made for mutatis mutandis does not mean 'with such changes' if any, as may be necessary but 'with the necessary changes being made'....." 11. In case of Morlays (B'Ham) Ltd. v. Roshanlal Ramsahai & Anr. AIR1961Bom156, the words 'as if' as used in Section 44-A of civil Procedure Code came to be interpreted, to mean that the words 'as if' have no wiser meaning with reference to scheme of Order XXI in respect of execution of decrees of foreign Courts. 12. In the first place, it is necessary to keep in view that Bombay Act is a beneficial legislation, which regulates the conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theatres, other p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the Act applies, as if they were workmen within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 15. In order to properly interpret any of provisions of the Statute the Court is to see whether the terms of the section are such as fairly to carry out that object and no other and to read the section with a view to finding and to read the section with a view to finding out what it means and not with a view to extending it to something that was not intended. In order to understand the true scope and interpretation of Section 38-A of the Bombay Act, we would like to refer to observations of Apex Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa & Ors. (1978)ILLJ349SC . In para 42, page 560 of the report, it is observed : "...... Here we have to be cautions not to fall into the trap of definitional expansionism bordering on reduction ad absurdum not to truncate the obvious amplitude of the provisions to fit it into out mental mould of belief and prejudices or social philosophy conditioned by class interests. Subjective wish shall not be father to the forensic through, if creditability with a pluralist community is a value to be cherished 'Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall nevertheless be made......." It is an established principle that the same words or phrases, when used in Acts dealing with the same subject matter often bear the same meaning. So also, where a word has been constructed judicially in a certain legal area, it is we think, right to give it the same meaning if it occurs in a statute, dealing with the same general subject matter unless that the word must have a different construction. Those words 'mutatis mutandis' is decided case cited supra are almost identical with Section 38-A and we think that these words should be given the same meaning. It is, therefore, a 'fair inference' that "Employee" means the same thing as 'workman' in Workmen's Compensation Act. 18. It is evident from the words 'as if'. The words 'as if' in Section 38-A are used to equate the position of employees and workmen in that respect of liability of employer for personal inquiry caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 19. It seems to us that is really the only interpretation th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited......." 21. We may, generally observe that it is a well accepted legislative practice to incorporate by reference, if the legislature so chooses, the provisions of some other Act in so far as they are relevant for the purposes of and in furtherance of the scheme and object of that Act. Where certain provisions of an Act are, by means of a legal fiction, deemed to have been imposed under the provisions of another Act, and the structure of that Act is thereby made applicable, what the Courts really have before them is an instance of referential legislation by means of a legal fiction and not of incorporation proper of one statute in another. 22. As we have indicated that under Section 38-A of Bombay Act, the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the rules made from time to time thereunder shall 'mutatis mutandis' apply to employees of an establishment to which this Act applies, as if they were workmen within the meaning of the Act of 1923. This is a legislative device adopted by the legislature to enact the provisions of Workmen's Compensation act with reference to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to procedure only. Hence, we reiterate that the present appellant, who belongs to the clerical cadre of the Board is entitled to maintain an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for compensation. 24. It is, therefore, not necessary for an employee of an establishment to which the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 applies to prove that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, because section 38-A itself contains a deeming provision. In the given case, therefore, the view taken by the authority below is not legally correct. The authority below has fallen into a legal error in taking into account the definition of the 'workman' as contained in Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1948, in isolation and in disregard to the provision contained in Section 38-A of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. 25. Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the case of Debi Mata v. State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR1972Cal497, wherein also phrase 'mutatis mutandis' has been explained. It has been observed that, phrase, 'mutatis mutandis'....