Bombay High Court
Sudarshan Raosaheb Ghuge And Ors vs The Managing Director, Lokneta Baburao ... on 17 March, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 901-FA-4460-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4460 OF 2016
1. Sudarshan s/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 22 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
2. Anjana d/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 20 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
3. Ranjana d/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 13 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
4. Goardhan s/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 11 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
5. Mamta w/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 37 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Applicants
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Lokneta Baburao Patil
Sahkari Karkhana Angar,
Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.
2. The Secretary,
Lokneta Sarvaseva Sangh,
Laxmi nagar Angar,
Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.
3. Laxman s/o. Govind Ghuge,
Age Major, Occu. Labour Contractor,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
2 901-FA-4460-16.odt
...
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for appellants
Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2
Mr. Arvind K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 3
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
This appeal is arising out of the Judgment and order dated 17-10-2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Beed, in WMC No. 6 of 2014, rejecting the claim fled by the appellants herein for compensation under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on a death of Ravsaheb Patilba Ghuge, father of appellants No. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant No. 5 during the course of employment.
2. I have heard respective learned counsels for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as follows :-
The father of appellants No. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant No. 5 - Ravsaheb Patilba Ghuge, alleged to have in the employment of sugarcane factory of respondents No. 1 and 2 as a sugarcane cutter through respondent No. 3, who is the contractor.
It is the case of appellants-claimants that the deceased had bullock cart and he used to cut sugarcane and supply it to sugar factory through his bullock cart. On 03-04-2002, the deceased had cut sugarcane in the agricultural feld of one Mahipati Shiva Mane ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 ::: 3 901-FA-4460-16.odt and took it to the sugar factory, where he unloaded the sugarcane and took the slips for the next day. The deceased, thereafter, was missing, and therefore, a missing report was lodged with the police.
Thereupon, criminal complaint under section 364 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 3 was registered at Mohal Police Station, District Solapur, on 05-04-2012.
The dead-body of the deceased was found on 06-04-2012 in the well of one Suryabhan Shinde, near the electronic weighing machine of the sugar factory. Accordingly, the claim petition was fled.
The learned commissioner was pleased to reject the same on the ground that the claimants failed to satisfy the prerequisite of section 3 of the Act of 1923 namely, that the accident arose out of the employment. The said Judgment and order is under challenged in the present appeal.
4. Mr. S. R. Sirsath, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants have established all three prerequisites of Section 3, namely (i) that there was an accident, (ii) that the accident arose in the course of employment and (iii) that the accident arose out of employment.
He further submits that the learned Commissioner has given unnecessary weightage to the criminal case fled against respondent No. 3 - contractor, against whom the claimants had ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 ::: 4 901-FA-4460-16.odt suspicion about commission of murder of the deceased because of illicit relation of respondent No. 3 with appellant No. 5. It is submitted that, however, in the sessions trial, respondent No. 3 has already been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case against him, thus, there is clear acquittal. Hence, the impugned Judgment and order is erroneous.
5. Learned counsels appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 are supporting the Judgment impugned and pray for rejection of appeal.
6. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record and proceedings of the claim petition and also gone through the Judgment and order dated 17 th October, 2016 impugned in the present appeal. Thereupon, it is revealed that though in the written statement, respondents No. 1 and 2 employer have specifcally raised a plea that the deceased was not the employee of respondents No. 1 and 2, but, he was working through the respondent No. 3 - contractor, the learned Commissioner did not answer the same. It is necessary to answer the said issue in relation to relationship as employer and employee, frst for making provisions of the Act of 1923 applicable. However, in the present matter, the learned Commissioner without answering the said issue considered the claim on merits.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
5 901-FA-4460-16.odt
7. Further more, learned Commissioner has given much weightage to fling of the criminal case against respondent No. 3 - contractor on a complaint lodged by claimants alleging commission of murder. When the impugned Judgment and order passed, the sessions trial against respondent No. 3 was pending. However, after the impugned Judgment and order was passed, the respondent No. 3 has been acquitted by the Sessions Court. The said fact has bearing on the present matter in view of the recent Judgments of this Court and Honourable Supreme Court of India, wherein, it has been held that 'murder' also comes within the purview of defnition of 'accident' as defned in the Act of 1923.
8. In view of the above referred fndings recorded, I am of the considered view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned Commissioner for fresh consideration and a fresh decision after considering the above referred observations. Hence, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. The frst appeal is partly allowed.
2. The Judgment and order dated 17 th October, 2016 passed by learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Beed, in WMC No. 6 of 2014, is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh decision. ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
6 901-FA-4460-16.odt
3. It is made clear that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Beed shall take a decision on the claim petition after hearing both the parties and after considering observations made in this Judgment and the provision of law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
4. Parties are permitted to amend the claim or the written statement, if so necessary and advised.
5. The frst appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR ) JUDGE rrd ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::