Gujarat High Court
Manishaben Wd/O Sanjay @ Sandesh ... vs Lachi Sister Of Deceased Sanjay @ ... on 12 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 of 2024
================================================================
MANISHABEN WD/O SANJAY @ SANDESH DIPSINH SANGADIYA @
SANGHANIYA AND D/O. TEKUBHAI PARMAR
Versus
LACHI SISTER OF DECEASED SANJAY @ SANDESH & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHAL S. PATEL(14220) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
PARTH Y PATHAK(7528) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 12/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.01.2021 passed by learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation Act, Labour Court No.(4), Vadodara in Workmen Compensation Fatal Application No.13 of 2013.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Parth Y. Pathak for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined 3. The brief facts of the case are as under;
3.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3-original claimants filed Workmen Compensation Application Fatal No.13 of 2013 before the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation Act, Labour Court No.(4), Vadodara. It is the case of the original-claimants that Sanjay @ Sandesh Sangadiya, because of injuries sustained in the course of his employment, expired. Original-Opponent No.3-present appellant is the wife of deceased and original- claimants Nos.1 to 3 are siblings of deceased. Learned Commissioner allowed application by judgment and order dated 20.01.2021 and directed original-opponent Nos.1 and 2 to pay applicant Nos.1 to 3 and opponent No.3 (wife of deceased) compensation of Rs.5,06,745/- with interest @12% and cost and other statutory benefits. It was further directed by learned Commissioner that opponent No.1 shall pay 50% of the compensation as penalty to applicant Nos.1 to 3 and opponent No.3. Thereafter, amount as per the direction of learned Commissioner was deposited before learned Commissioner. An Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined application was filed by original-claimants for disbursement of the compensation vide Exhibit-58. The appellant also preferred an application for disbursement vide Exhibit-64. Both the applications were decided by a common order. Learned Commissioner disbursed Rs.2,30,000/- each in favour of original-claimant Nos.1 to 3 and Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of present appellant.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the unequal distribution of compensation, appellant is before this Court.
4. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is challenging the unequal distribution of compensation and further submitted that all applicants and the present appellant be allowed to get the compensation equally. Though present appellant has re-married pursuant to the demise of her husband, learned Commissioner has considered the present appellant as a dependent and has also Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined granted compensation. The following substantial questions of law are proposed by the learned advocate for the appellant.
I. Whether the Ld. Commissioner has erred in appreciating the evidence placed before it?
II. Whether the Ld. Commissioner has erred in not distributing the amount of compensation equally between the four dependents of the deceased workman?
III. Whether the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 already attaining majority on date of award being 20/1/2021 would qualify them to be still affected adversely in economic terms as present appellant?
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3-original claimants has resisted the contention by filing an affidavit-in-reply dated 19.03.2025. The contention which has been raised by learned advocate for the respondents is mainly that appellant though served in the original proceedings of compensation, filed Written Statement but did not take part in the proceedings. It is further contended that after the sad demise of deceased on 15.02.2013, appellant did not bother to carry out post death rites and did not take care of respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were minor at the relevant point of time. After the said demise, deceased Sanjay @ Sandesh Sangadiya, appellant has Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined remarried to one Mr. Shailesh Jwalbhai Mavi before 9 years and has two children out of the said wedlock. It is further contended that after re-marriage, appellant would not fall within the definition of dependent and she would not be entitled to compensation. However, learned Commissioner has considered appellant as a dependent and by order dated 15.12.2023 found appellant entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (15% out of the total compensation). It is further contended that order of distribution of compensation is a discretionary order and when learned Commissioner has exercised his discretionary powers, such order may not be interfered with by this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and paper-book placed on record. It appears that pursuant to claim application, learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,745/- with 12% interest coupled with penalty to the tune of 50% in favour of the original-claimant Nos.1 to 3 and original-opponent No.3. The question cropped up between the parties with regard to Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined distribution of compensation. It appears from the record that during the entire proceedings of compensation, appellant did not take part in proceedings and at the time of distribution of compensation, she raised an issue of equal distribution. The record also reveals that appellant has re-married after the sad demise of her husband and is having her family out of second marriage. Learned Commissioner while exercising his discretion with regard to distribution of compensation, distributed 85% out of the total compensation, in favour of original-claimants and remaining 15%, in favour of appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant could not lay his hand on any of the provisions of law, which mandates that the distribution has to be equal in proportion and unequal distribution is not permissible under the law. When learned Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction while distributing compensation, such exercise of discretionary powers cannot be re-assessed or re-appreciated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Moreover, the substantial questions of law which Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 undefined have been proposed by appellant are not in strict sense questions of law, much less, substantial questions of law. Thus, in absence of any substantial question of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the reasonings assigned by learned Commissioner while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Resultantly, First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, connected Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
7. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Jun 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 17 22:05:45 IST 2025