Nani v Public Utilities Board

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Date: 1980
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 59 of
• Year: 1980
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Nani

Plaintiff

and

Public Utilities Board

Defendant

[1980] SGHC 30

T Kulasekaram J

District Court Appeal No 59 of 1979

High Court

Employment Law–Workmen's Compensation Act 1975 (Act 25 of 1975)–Employee died of injury sustained during dispute with fellow worker–Whether death in course of and arising out of employment–Section 3 Workmen's Compensation Act 1975 (Act 25 of 1975)

The appellant, Nani, was the widow of the deceased Veloo who was employed by the respondent, the Public Utilities Board (“PUB”), as an electrician. She claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1975 (Act 25 of 1975) (“the Act”) for the death of her husband, alleging that he died in the course of and arising out of his employment with PUB. The evidence was that on 4 September 1976, Veloo was assigned to work as a team with a fellow worker, one Rozario, to make metal clamps for clamping down electric cables. In the course of their work as a team, an argument arose. Veloo complained that Rozario was cutting the metal straps crookedly and asked him for the saw so that he could do the cutting properly. Rozario kept on cutting and replied that he would do the cutting himself as it had to be done fast. In the ensuing argument over this dispute, Rozario alleged that Veloo slapped him and he, in turn, retaliated by pushing Veloo. Veloo then fell backwards on the floor and sustained a fractured skull from which he died. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation held that Veloo did not die in an accident within the meaning of the Act. He further found that the incident resulting in his death did not occur in the course of or arose out of his employment. Nani appealed against his decision.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) It was clear that there was nothing personal about the argument between Veloo and Rozario. Each one thought he could do better in the work they had to perform as a team and so there were differences of opinion and each wanted his opinion to prevail in the interest of the employer's duty. The dispute between them was clearly in the course of their employment and the eventual slapping by Veloo and the subsequent pushing or punching by Rozario which resulted in Veloo falling backwards and sustaining a fractured skull from which he died were also all clearly arising out of the employment: at [9] and [10].

(2) When workers with a low level of education such as Veloo and Rozario were asked to work as a team by their employer, with very little direct...