Karnataka High Court
Sri Nithin vs Smt. Jayalakshmi on 25 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4614 OF 2013 (WC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9363 OF 2013 (WC)
IN MFA No. 4614/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O SRI.RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
2. KUM. SANDHYA
D/O.LATE RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGE:15 YEARS,
3. MASTER GANESH
S/O.LATE RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGE:10 YEARS,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA PETITIONER NO.2 TO 3 ARE SINCE MINORS,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPTD., BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT.JAYALAKSHMI PETITIONER NO.1.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
EECHAPPADI, PEENAGARAM TALUK,
ERIYUR POST,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. KIRAN CHETTY,
M/S.KESAL MARBLE N.GRANITES LTD.,
K.NO.77, 100% EOU(SLABS),
BAVIKERE VILALGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 123.
2 . SRI. NIRANJAN
M/S.KESAL MARBLE N.GRANITES LTD.,
K.NO.77, 100% EOU(SLABS),
BAVIKERE VILALGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 123.
3. SRI.NITHIN
OWNER,
M/S.ALPHA GRANITES PVT.LTD.,
M/S ALPHA STONE PVT.LTD.,
NO.26/B, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 030.
...RESPONDENTS
( VIDE ORDER DATED 28.05.2021,
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
BY SRI. H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C.ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:29.1.2013 PASSED IN
WCA/NFC/CR.NO.75/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 9363/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. NITHIN
& ALSO CALLED AS
NITHIN BHAGAMANE,
S/O LATE BAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF GRANITE PVT. LTD.,
& ALPHA STONE PVT. LTD.,
NO.26-B, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 100.
REP: BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
MR.VASUDEV. T.D.,
S/O DEVAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 098.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. KUMARI SANDHYA
D/O LATE RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
3. MASTER GANESH
S/O LATE RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT.JAYALAKSHMI THE
RESPONDENT NO.1.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
EECHAPAADI VILLAGE,
ERIYUR POST,
PENNAGARAM TALUK,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE- 636 701.
4. SRI.KIRAN CHETTY,
FIRST OWNER,
M/S. KESEL MARBLE N GRANITE LTD.,
K.NO.77, 100% EOU (SLABS),
BHAVIKERE VILLAGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 123.
5. SRI.NIRANJAN
SECOND OWNER,
M/S. KESEL MARBLE N GRANITE LTD.,
K.NO.77, 100% EOU (SLABS),
BHAVIKERE VILLAGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2019,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:29.1.2013
PASSED IN NO.ECA/FC/CR/75/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,78,485/- WITH
INTEREST @ 12% P.A AFTER ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE
OF ACCIDENT TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.06.2025, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of order passed by the
Labour Officer and Commissioner under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, Sub-Division-1, Bengaluru, (for short,
`Labour Commissioner'), in case No.WCA Bengaluru-
1/ECA/FC/CR-75/2007, dated 29.01.2013.
2. MFA.No.4614/2013 is filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation and
MFA.No.9363/2013 is filed by respondent No.3
(employer), challenging his liability to pay the
compensation awarded.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
3. Both these appeals arise out of common award
passed by the Labour Commissioner and hence, they are
taken up together for disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case were that :
One Ravi @ Ravikumar, was the husband of claimant
No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3. He was aged
about 30 years at the time of his death and was working
as a 'black granite stone marker' under respondent No.3
M/s.Alpha Granite Private Limited, and earning a salary of
Rs.6,000/- per month. There exists employer and
employee relationship between respondent No.3 and
deceased Ravikumar.
5. It is further contended that, few days prior to
16.09.2006, as per the directions and instructions of
respondent No.3-employer, the said Ravi had been to
Jyotigowdanapura village of Chamarajanagar District, to
mark the black granite stones. He worked day-in and
day-out as per the directions of respondent No.3. Due to
said stress and strain, on 16.09.2006, when Ravi reached
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
near the quarry, wherein he had to mark the granite
stones, he suffered severe chest pain. Immediately, he
was taken to a hospital, it was declared that he was
brought dead. The matter was reported to
Chamarajanagara East Police, wherein UDR Case
No.24/2006 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.PC.
6. The claimants further contended that the deceased
was hale and healthy prior to his death. Whenever
Respondent No.3 received more orders of granite stones,
he was insisting deceased Ravi to mark stones day-in and
day-out to meet heavy orders. In view of the said stress
and strain, he died due to heart attack, and there was no
other reason for the same. Therefore, claimants prayed
to award compensation under the Workmen's
Compensation Act.
7. Initially, the claim petition was filed against
respondent Nos.1 and 2, thereafter, respondent No.3 was
impleaded.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
8. Respondent No.3 in his written statement
denied the contents of the claim petition. He specifically
denied that the deceased was employed under him on a
monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and he had directed the
deceased to work day and night, which allegedly resulted
in a heart attack and the death of Ravi. He also denied his
liability to pay compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
9. The Labour Commissioner considering the
contentions of the both parties, framed necessary issues.
10. The claimants to prove their case, examined
two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 11
documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-11. Even after giving
sufficient opportunities, respondent No.3 did not lead any
oral or documentary evidence.
11. The Labour Commissioner, after hearing the
parties, held that the deceased was an employee working
under Respondent No.3, and that an employer-employee
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
relationship was existed between the deceased and
Respondent No.3. The claimants were unable to prove that
the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, The
Labour Commissioner assessed the wages of the deceased
at Rs.2,678/- per month on the basis of Notification issued
by Government of Karnataka in respect of skilled labour
and applied the factor as 207.98, deducted 50% of the
income of the deceased as per Section 4 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act')
and assessed the compensation of Rs.2,78,485/-.
12. Both the claimants, as well as respondent No.3
being dissatisfied by the above said award, challenged the
same in the present appeals.
13. I have heard the arguments.
14. These appeals were admitted to consider the
following substantial question of law.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
In MFA.No.4614/2013 :
" Whether the claimants have made out a case
for enhancement of compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the case?"
In MFA.No.9363/2013 :
" Whether the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation is justified in holding that
the claimants have proved that there existed
employer and employee relationship between the
deceased Ravikumar and respondents No.3?"
15. During the pendency of the appeal in
MFA.No.9363/2013, the appellant filed an application -
IA.No.3/2013, under Order LXI Rule 27 read with Section
151 of CPC, seeking permission to lead additional
evidence. The said application was heard along with the
main appeals.
16. Both the substantial questions of law are
interconnected, therefore, I have taken them together for
discussion.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
17. The contention of the employer is that, under
Section 10 of the Act, the issuance of notice is mandatory,
and since no such notice was issued, the claim petition
filed by the claimants is not maintainable. However, the
Commissioner failed to address this issue in the impugned
order. Therefore, the said order is bad in the eyes of law.
18. The learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants contended that as per Section 10 of
the Act, notice is not mandatory, and only on that count,
the claim petition cannot be rejected. He further
contended that, no such defence was taken by the
employer before the Commissioner, and for the first time,
such a contention is raised by the employer in this appeal,
and the same cannot be considered in the appellate stage
for the first time.
19. The submission of learned counsel for the
claimants that this point was raised for the first time
before this Court is true. No such objection was raised
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
before the Labour Commissioner, and the Labour
Commissioner had not raised any such issue, and no
answers were given. Since it is a question of law, only on
that count, said contention cannot be rejected. This Court
needs to consider the same.
20. To consider point of issuance of prior notice
under Section 10 of the Act, it is necessary to refer to the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act., which reads as
under:
" 10. Notice and claim.- (1) No claim for
compensation shall be entertained by a
Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been
given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as
practicable after the happening thereof and unless
the claim is preferred before him within [two years]
of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death
within [two years] from the date of death:
Provided that where the accident is the
contracting of a disease in respect of which the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are
applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have
occurred on the first of the days during which the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
[employee] was continuously absent from work in
consequence of the disablement caused by the
disease:
Provided further that in case of partial
disablement due to the contracting of any such
disease and which does not force the [employee] to
absent himself from work, the period of two years
shall be counted from the day the [employee] gives
notice of the disablement to his employer:
Provided further that if [an employee] who,
having been employed in an employment for a
continuous period, specified under sub-section (2) of
section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to
be so employed and develops symptoms of an
occupational disease, peculiar to that employment
within two years of the cessation of employment, the
accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the
day on which the symptoms were first detected:
Provided further that the want of or any defect
or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the
[entertainment of a claim]--
(a) if the claim is [preferred] in respect of the
death of [an employee] resulting from an accident
which occurred on the premises of the employer, or
at any place where the [employee] at the time of the
accident was working under the control of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
employer or of any person employed by him, and the
[employee] died on such premises or at such place,
or on any premises belonging to the employer, or
died without having left the vicinity of the premises
or place where the accident occurred, or
(b) if the employer [or any one of several
employers or any person responsible to the employer
for the management of any branch of the trade or
business in which the injured [employee] was
employed] had knowledge of the accident from any
other source at or about the time when it occurred:]
Provided further that the Commissioner may
[entertain] and decide any claim to compensation in
any case notwithstanding that the notice has not
been given, or the claim has not been [preferred], in
due time as provided in this subsection, if he is
satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or
[prefer] the claim, as the case may be, was due to
sufficient cause.
(2) Every such notice shall give the name and
address of the person injured and shall state in
ordinary language the cause of the injury and the
date on which the accident happened, and shall be
served on the employer or upon any [one of] several
employers, or upon any person responsible to the
employer for the management of any branch of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
trade or business in which the injured *[workman]
was employed.
(3) The State Government may require that
any prescribed class of employers shall maintain at
their premises at which [employees] are employed a
notice book, in the prescribed form, which shall be
readily accessible at all reasonable times to any
injured [employee] employed on the premises and to
any person acting bona fide on his behalf.
(4) A notice under this section may be served
by delivering it at, or sending it by registered post
addressed to, the residence or any office or place of
business of the person on whom it is to be served,
or, where a notice-book is maintained, by entry in
the notice-book."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. On examining the records of the Commissioner,
the inquest mahazar revealed that the incident occurred
near the quarry, wherein the deceased, Ravi, was
intending to go, to mark the black stone. It appears that,
when he collapsed near the quarry, complaining of severe
chest pain, one Santhosh took him to the hospital. In his
report to the police, Santhosh stated that Ravi was
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
immediately shifted from the spot to the hospital in a
tipper lorry of quarry, wherein both Santhosh and the
deceased Ravi were employed. Therefore, the incident was
within the knowledge of the employer.
22. As per the proviso stated in Section 10 of the
Act, if the incident took place near or within the workplace,
and fact of death was known to the employer, then
issuance of notice under Section 10 of the act is not
mandatory. The said proviso is applicable to the facts of
the present case. Hence, non-issuance of prior notice in
this case is not fatal.
23. As per the provisions of Section 4(A) of the Act,
the employer is also liable to pay penalty and interest, if
he fails to deposit the compensation amount within a
period of 30 days from the date of accident. Unless the
employer is aware that such an incident had occurred;
he will be unable to deposit the amount. To avoid these
complications, the legislature must have enacted above
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
provision of Section 10 of the Act, imposing a condition
that notice shall be issued prior to filing of the claim
petition before the competent authority. However,
Section 10 of the Act itself indicates that the issuance of
notice is not mandatory in certain circumstances.
24. The main attack on the impugned award by the
employer is that, there was no employer-employee
relationship, and that the deceased never worked under
Respondent No.3 as an employee. This question of fact
was dealt with in detail by the Labour Commissioner in the
impugned award.
25. In the claim petition filed before the Labour
Commissioner, claimants stated that deceased was
working under respondent No.3 as a 'black stone marker'
and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In the evidence of
PW-1, she has reiterated the same facts on oath.
26. In her cross-examination, she has fairly stated
that there were no documents to prove that he was
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
working under respondent No.3 and drawing salary of
Rs.6,000/- per month.
27. Learned counsel for the employer has much
argued on this point, and stated that since there were no
materials available on the record with the claimants, they
were unable to prove the said fact. The said contention is
not acceptable. It is not the case of employer that at the
time of appointing labourers, respondent No.3 had issued
appointment orders. No records were produced by
Respondent No.3 before the Labour Commissioner
regarding payment of salary. When no such procedures
were followed and no records were produced, then how
could claimants produce the documents to prove that the
deceased was working under respondent No.3. There were
no reasons to the claimants to lie before the Labour
Commissioner, in this regard.
29. It is pertinent to note that to rebut the said
evidence of PWs.1 and 2, respondents have not led any
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
evidence or produced any document before the Labour
Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner in the impugned
award has stated that, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the, respondent No.3 did not enter the
witness box or produce any document to show that the
deceased was not working under him.
30. Respondent No.3, in its counter, at one breath
denies the existence of an employer-employee relationship
with the deceased and stated that he was unknown
person; And on another breath, contended that the
deceased was addicted to alcohol and he was a heavy
drunkard and died due to said reason. If he was unaware
of the deceased, then how he got information that
deceased was addicted to alcohol and that lead to his
death? Even in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2,
the said defence was raised and both of them have denied
that deceased was addicted to alcohol. Even the doctor,
who has conducted the post mortem, has not noted in the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
post mortem report that the deceased died due to excess
consumption of liquor.
31. The claimants have produced certain documents
before the Labour Commissioner with a list dated
26.05.2010. Ex.P-1 is a UDR FIR No.24/06 registered
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and a complaint was lodged
by one Santosh, s/o Raman, who was not related to the
deceased, but resident of the same village, wherein
deceased was residing. On 16.09.2000, immediately after
the death of Ravi, said Santosh has stated before the
concerned police that deceased was working in 'Alpha
Granite Pvt. Ltd.,' as a 'black stone marker,' and for a
month prior to the incident, he had been working in the
quarries to mark the stones as per the directions of Alpha
Granite, who deputed him to do the said marking work.
He also stated that, as per directions of M/s.Alpha Granite
Pvt. Ltd., deceased was marking the black stones in
different quarries situated in Jyotigowdanapura as well as
Chamarajanagara.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
32. The police conducted the inquest on the dead
body as per Ex.P-3, and at that time, police recorded the
statements of one Chalapathy bin Nagaraju, who was
cousin of the deceased and one Chandrashekara, son of
Marimadaiah, who was a co-worker, and working in the
company of respondent No.3, along with deceased.
33. Both of them have stated before police that the
deceased was working as a black stone marker with
respondent No.3 at Bengaluru and one month prior to the
incident, the said company deputed him to mark the
stones in the quarries situated near Jyothigowdanapura
and Chamarajanagara, who agreed to sell the stones to
respondent No.3. It was also stated by both of them that
on the day of incident, deceased Ravi came nearby a
quarry to mark the black stone; at that time, he
complained of severe chest pain, and within few seconds
he fell down, and thereafter he was shifted to Christian
Hospital, wherein they were advised to take Ravi to
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
Government hospital. Accordingly, he was shifted to
Government hospital, wherein it was declared that he was
brought dead.
34. These documents came into picture at an
undisputed point of time. There was no reason for both
Chalapathy, as well as Chandrashekar to give a false
statement before the concerned police that the deceased
was working under respondent No.3. The claim petition
was filed before Labour Commissioner about six to seven
months after the said incident. These factors clearly
indicate that the deceased went to Jyotigowdanapura or
nearby areas in Chamarajanagara District at the
instructions and direction of Respondent No.3, to mark
black stones in the quarry located in or around those
places, who have agreed to sell the granite stones to
respondent No.3.
35. In Ex.P-3, at Columns 11 and 17, the police,
based on the materials collected during their investigation,
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
opined that the deceased was working under Respondent
No.3. Ex P-4 is post mortem report. These facts were not
challenged during the cross-examination of PW-1 or PW-2.
Furthermore, Respondent No.3 failed to examine the
concerned Investigating Officer to disprove the contents of
the said document. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW-1
and PW-2, corroborated by Exs.P-1 to P-3, clearly
establishes the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.3.
36. Respondent No.3 employer has filed
IA.No.3/2013 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC, seeking
permission to lead additional evidence. This is an appeal
under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, and a
summary trial proceedings. Only substantial question of
law has to be considered. Undisputedly, respondent No.3
appeared before the Commissioner during the year of
2008 and filed its counter statement, stating that there
were no records to show that the deceased was working
with respondent No.3. In para-5 of the objections
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
statement filed by respondent No.3, it was stated that in
the Muster Roll and payment register, name of deceased
Ravi was not at all found.
37. The documents produced under IA.No.3/2023
(Xerox copies) appears to be a Muster Roll and salary
payment register for the month of August 2006 to
September 2006. In the said register, name of Ravi
appears in two places, one is `D.Ravi' and another as
`Ravi T.'. There are no sufficient reasons for non-
production of the said documents before Labour
Commissioner, although the matter was pending for about
4 to 5 years after appearance of respondent No.3 in the
said proceedings. The reasons assigned in the affidavit for
non-production of these documents before Labour
Commissioner is not satisfactory or justifiable, to permit
respondent no.3 to produce the said documents. After
lapse of about 20 years, if the application is allowed and
matter is remanded to Labour Commissioner, it will
seriously prejudice the case of the claimants.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
These records were said to be in the custody of
respondent No.3 and they are private records. The
apprehension of learned counsel for claimants that these
records are created just to avoid payment of
compensation. If the case is remanded, then claimants
may not be able to rebut these records by examining any
of the co-workers, who were working with deceased during
his lifetime. Due to lapse of time such witnesses may not
be available. These contentions of the claimants cannot
be ruled out.
38. In addition to that, had these documents been
placed on record before the Labour Commissioner, the
claimants would have had an opportunity to examine the
employees working in the said quarries or with respondent
No.3 and prove that the deceased was working with the
said persons under respondent No.3. Much water is flown
under the bridge. The matter is of the year 2006 and
during the year 2013, employer filed these documents
before the Appellate Court, seeking production of the said
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
documents to deny the case of the claimants. The reasons
assigned in the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.3/2013
are also not just and sufficient to permit the employer to
lead additional evidence. If Respondent No.3 is allowed
to produce, then claimants' right will be seriously
prejudiced. On both count, application deserves to be
rejected.
39. This is a benevolent legislation enacted to give an
immediate relief to a suffered workman or members of
family of a workman who dies in the course of
employment and a summary trial proceedings. Therefore,
there is no reason to allow the application, and even if the
documents are considered, they do not help the Labour
Commissioner or this Court to decide the disputed
question. It will cause further delay in getting
compensation by the claimants.
41. The claimants contended that the amount of
compensation awarded is inadequate. According to their
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
contention, the Labour Commissioner ought to have taken
the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, as
contended by them. Admittedly, no records were produced
before the Labour Commissioner to prove that deceased
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Merely stating some
figures before the Labour Commissioner regarding the
income, cannot be a ground to take up the said income.
42. In addition to that, the Labour Commissioner
considered the contentions of the claimants. When there
was no reliable evidence to prove the income of the
deceased, the Labour Commissioner followed the
Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka in
ascertaining notional income of the deceased and
calculated the composition. I do not find any reason to say
that the said finding is perverse or arbitrary.
43. The learned counsel for the claimant relied on a
judgment in the case New India Assurance Company
Limited -vs- Maruti and others, reported in 2018 ACJ 268.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
The fact of both cases are different. In that case, the
owner remained ex parte, and the Commissioner under
Workmen's Compensation Act, followed the Minimum
Wages Act, and assessed the income of a coolie as
Rs.3,500/- per month. Looking at the facts and
circumstances of that case, the income of the deceased
was taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. It will not help the
claimants to support their case.
44. The claimant relied upon a judgment in the case
of Debabai and others -vs- Rajkumar and others,
reported in 2018 ACJ 2791. In that case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, considering the facts of that case, held that
there was no reason for the claimant to file a false case.
45. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 relied on
the following judgments :
(i) Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance
Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Bharati Rajaram Mouli and
others, reported in 2019 ACT 3086,
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
(ii) Praveenbhai s. Khambhayata -vs- United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, reported in
2015 ACJ 936,
(iii) Ramachandrappa -vs- Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2011 ACJ 2436.
46. The respondent Nos.3 has produced the following
judgments:
(i) Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta -vs-
Mst.Kaniz Fatem, reported in 1961 CALCUTTA 310,
(ii) Jyothi Ademma -vs- Plant Engineer,
Nellore and another, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 513,
(iii) Judgment passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in M/s.Tata Steel Ltd., -vs-
Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union and
another, Writ Petition No.9664/2021, decided
on22.10.2024.
47. I have gone through the above said decisions.
However, the facts and circumstances of the present case
are distinct from those in the cited judgments. The
decisions referred to were rendered based on the specific
context of those cases. Therefore, the legal principles laid
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769
MFA No. 4614 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013
HC-KAR
down therein do not support the contentions of
Respondent No. 3, who has not led any rebuttal evidence.
For above discussions, I do not find that the findings
of the Labour Commissioner are perverse, arbitrary or
capricious or without any basis. Therefore, there is no
need to interfere in the findings of the Labour
Commissioner.
48. Accordingly, I answer the substantial questions of
law framed in MFA.No.4614/2013 against the claimants
and MFA.No.9363/2013 against the employer/respondent
No.3 and proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
i) MFA.No.4614/2013 and MFA.No.9363/2013 are dismissed.
IA.No.3/2013 filed under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC in MFA.No.9363/2013, stands rejected.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.01.2013, passed by the Labour Officer and
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30769 MFA No. 4614 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9363 of 2013 HC-KAR Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sub-Division-1, Bengaluru, in case No.WCA Bengaluru-1/ECA/FC/CR- 75/2007, is confirmed.
iii) Whatever amount deposited by the employer/respondent No.3 shall be transmitted to the concerned Court/Labour Commissioner for disbursement to the claimants in accordance with law.
All the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Court/ Labour Commissioner.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1