Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Commander 35 Brtf And Another vs Gulab Bibi on 7 October, 2022
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 28.09.2022
Pronounced on : 07.10.2022
MA No. 128/2007
Commander 35 BRTF and another ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr.Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Vs
Gulab Bibi .....Respondent(s)
Through: None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
Upon the death of her husband, namely, Shukar (Shikkar) Din, who had died in the course of his employment as workman on account of an accidental injury, the respondent came to approach the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udhampur having the powers of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation (now Employee's Compensation) Act, 1923 with an application which came to be taken on file no. DWO/03/08 dated 19.03.2007 for the purpose of grant of compensation.
In her application, the respondent had averred that her husband Shukar (Shikkar) Din was engaged as a Casual Mistry by the GREF for the road construction purposes when on 18.01.2002 while in the course of 2 MA No. 128/2007 his work her husband came to suffer a fatal injury which resulted in his hospitalization at Udhampur and within a period of 7 days i.e. on 25.01.2022 he came to expire. The petitioner had stated in her application that her husband was getting Rs. 2,600/- monthly as wages. Seeing that no workmen compensation has come to be paid to her on account of her husband's death, the respondent had approached with an application to the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur.
On behalf of the employer i.e. Commander 35 BRTF (GREF) and OC 52 RCC (GREF) Batote, the response was submitted in the said application and the matter was put to an enquiry by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur by framing issues, which are reproduced as under:-
1) Whether the deceased Shukar (Shikkar) Din sustained injuries during and under the course of his employment with the non-applicants on 18.01.2003. O.P.P.
2) Whether the cause of death of the deceased was due to the injuries mentioned in issue no. 1. O.P.P.
3) What was the age and monthly wages of the deceased at the time of accident. O.P.P.
4) Relief.3 MA No. 128/2007
In the enquiry in the case, evidence came to be led on behalf of the applicant/respondent which was tested in cross-examination by the non-applicants/appellants in the case before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur. The petitioner's husband was stated to have been working for the last 30-40 years s Mistry in GREF. The injury to the petitioner's husband was reported to have been in the course of his employment by an iron rod at the work site in the course of the bending of the iron rods and the petitioner's husband in a serious injury was taken in the GREF vehicle itself to a hospital at Udhampur where he remained admitted for few days only to succumb to the fatal injury later on. The work site at which the petitioner's husband came to meet the accidental injury was in Village Lotta. The deceased was survived by the respondent and the four minor daughters. On behalf of the non-applicants/appellants in the application i.e. Commander 35 BRTF (GREF) and OC 52 RCC (GREF) Batote had appeared as a witness stating that the deceased Shukar Din was working as a Mason-III and his name was even figuring in the muster-roll as a Casual Workman.
On the basis of the evidence so led in the case before him, the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur came to hold the petitioner entitled to compensation to an amount of Rs.1,62,110/- under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Schedule 4 of the said Act and commanded the non-applicants/appellants in the case before him to pay said award amount for the purpose of 4 MA No. 128/2007 disbursement to the respondent. The award was made by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur vide an order dated 30.05.2007.
This award has come to be challenged by the appellants -Union of India in the present appeal which has been pending adjudication since August, 2007. The fact that the respondent, who was the claimant in the case, chose not to cause appearance in the case is perhaps a pointer to the fact that the respondent might have been not possessing sufficient monetary resource at her end even to come and defend the award in the appeal so filed by the appellants-Union of India although the respondent has come to receive the compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,62,110/- upon the deposit being made by the appellants with the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur vide account payee's cheque no. 14833457 dated 26.10.2007.
A perusal of the grounds taken in the memo of appeal by the appellants would confirm one fact that the deceased Shukar (Shikker) Din was rendering his services as Mistry with the GREF and further that on the date of accident he was shifted from the site of the work to hospital in the vehicle of the GREF itself. Being a Mistry, the fact that he was said to be receiving Rs. 2,500/- per month from the officials of the GREF having engaged him for his services cannot be said to be an improbable fact so as to be disbelieved. The legal requirements for maintaining a case for compensation with respect to the death of a person under the Workmen's 5 MA No. 128/2007 Compensation Act, 1923 are the fact of employment of the deceased/injured notwithstanding the nature of employment temporary/ permanent/ casual and the amount of wages/ salary being received and the said person getting injured leading to his or her death or permanent disability. In the present case the said three incidents are made out and as such the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Udhampur cannot be found any fault with. Hence the appeal filed the appellants against the said award is dismissed.
(Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 07.10.2022 Muneesh Whether the order is reportable : Yes / No Whether the order is speaking : Yes / No