Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 06 April 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 69
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 20 of 2019
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 10 April 2020
• Hearing Date: 30 March 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Pillai Subbiah (Tan & Pillai)
• Defendant Counsel: Appoo Ramesh (Just Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 69

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant is a 28-year-old worker from Bangladesh. He worked in the respondent company as a manual worker whose job was to feed pieces of plywood through a laminating machine. The plywood would be placed on a conveyor belt roller and automatically moved along through a pair of connecting rollers.

As the plywood passes through the connecting rollers, laminate would be glued on the plywood. Occasionally, some glue would be stuck on the connecting rollers. According to the respondent, there is a standard procedure to remove this glue. First, the entire machine will have to be stopped. Sandpaper would be placed on the connecting roller and the machine will then be restarted. There will be some dust from the grinding of the glue. An airgun will then be used to blow away the dust. Finally, the machine is stopped again to have the sandpaper removed. After that, it will be restarted and production continues.

There would usually be two workers tending to the machine. The appellant was one of them. On 28 June 2015, he was instructed to clean the glue off the connecting rollers. His co-worker, Ali Mohammad Shah, went to collect the airgun, and it is during this time that the accident happened, in which the appellant’s fingers were crushed by the connecting rollers of the machine.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board assessed the workmen’s compensation for the appellant at $43,464.88, based on his salary of about $902 a month. The appellant was not satisfied with the award and sued the respondent. His claim was dismissed by the trial judge below and the appellant appealed against that decision before me.

The appellant’s case was based on the negligence of the respondent employer in not providing adequate supervision, training, and a safe system of work. But his evidence regarding all the aspects relating to work safety protocol and training fell apart when the trial judge found his evidence relating to matters of fact to be unreliable. The record and evidence support the trial judge’s findings.

The trial judge disbelieved the appellant’s testimony and pointed out aspects that tended to render his evidence unreliable. Contrary to his claims, the appellant was found to be one of the more experienced workers in relation to the machine’s operation and maintenance. He also taught new workers how to operate the machine. It appears that the appellant’s claim that he does not know how to stop the machine is untrue because,...