Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer & vs Takubhai @ Kanubhai Sadhubhai Decd. ... on 5 June, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5501 of 1999
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5502 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1....appellants(s)
Versus
TAKUBHAI @ KANUBHAI SADHUBHAI DECD. THRO' HEIR MANIBEN WD/O
& 3....Defendant(s)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5501 of 1999
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW, MR KIRIT PATEL, ADVOCATE for the appellants(s) No. 1
-2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 1.1
MR PRANAV S DAVE , MR RR TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No.
3.1 - 3.3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5502 of 1999
MR HS MUNSHAW, MR KIRIT PATEL, ADVOCATE for the appellants(s) No. 1
-2
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1 - 1.4
MR PRANAV S DAVE , MR RR TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No.
Page 1 of 24
HC-NIC Page 1 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
1.7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.5
UNSERVE - EXPIRED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 05/06/2017
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both these appeals arise from identical set of facts and circumstances, and therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellants are the officers of Public Health Works Department, who are the original-opponents Nos. 4 and 5.
3. The appellants entered into a contract with Respondent No.3, namely Rajubhai Jashubhai Shuru Gadhvi and Kishorbhai Jashubhai Shuru Gadhvi. The work was of excavating a well which, according to the appellants, was started from 27.04.1988 by the contractors. It is the grievance on the part of the appellants that without prior intimation, sanctions and permission of the appellants, Respondent Nos. 3 and 3.1 started contract work from 19.03.1988 by giving sub-contract to Respondent No.2. On 16.04.1988, the accident in question took place, resulting into serious injuries to two workmen and one of whom succumbed to the injuries, whereas, the other person sustained grave Page 2 of 24 HC-NIC Page 2 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT injuries resulting into permanent disability of vital parts of his body.
4. The injured workman and the heirs of the deceased workman, therefore, approached the Court of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'W.C. Act') by preferring Workman Compensation Case No. 241 of 1992 and 242 of 1992. In both the matters, detailed written submissions had been tendered by the appellants. Both the sides were permitted to adduce oral and documentary evidence and after oral and tendering of written-submissions before the Commissioner both the matters were allowed, where the appellants were directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.71,136/- with interest at the rate of 6% with penalty and costs in fatal case, whereas, in non-fatal case of the injured workman, the compensation granted was to the tune of Rs.97,609/- with interest at the rate of 6% with penalty of 50% and costs.
The appellants have preferred First Appeal No. 5501 of 1999 against the judgment and order passed in W.C. Case No. 242 of 1992 and Fist Appeal No. 5502 of 1999 against the order of compensation granted in W.C. Case No. 241 of 1992.
Page 3 of 24
HC-NIC Page 3 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
5. It is the say of the appellants in both the matters that the judgment and order passed by the Court of the learned Commissioner is patently erroneous and has been rendered without considering the terms and conditions of the contract which was entered into by the appellant with Respondent Nos. 3 and 3.1. It is further their say that the work was to be commenced on 27.04.1988 and the accident took place on 19.04.1988, and therefore, the appellants cannot be held responsible. Moreover, there was nothing to indicate that Respondent Nos. 3 and 3.2 to have been given the sub-contract to Respondent No.3 and if any work was started, the same was without intimation to the appellants. It is therefore urged that Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 3.1 ought to be held responsible for compensation, if at all, same needed to be given. The appellants in no manner can be held liable.
6. Respondent Nos. 3 and 3.1 before the Court of the learned Commissioner had filed their reply raising preliminary objection that there was no relationship of employer and employee of these respondents with the injured or the deceased workman. It is not in dispute that excel of the trolley had broken down and that had resulted into serious injuries to both Takhubhai @ Kanubhai Shardulbhai and to Gajubhai Banesinh.
Page 4 of 24
HC-NIC Page 4 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
Respondent No.1 had started the work even before the contract was given to these respondents officially. The stand taken by them is that without their permission and consent, the sub- contractor had started carrying out the work and therefore any accident that took place without their consent or knowledge. No liability can be saddled upon the main contractor.
7. It can be noticed from the records and proceedings that various documentary evidences had been adduced and both the sides also adduced oral evidences. After extensively considering both the oral as well as documentary evidences, the learned Commissioner framed the issues in the following manner:
(A) Whether the applicant proves that he was a workman?
(B) Whether the injury sustained by the applicant was in the course of the employment?
(C) Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, if yes, the quantum?
(D) Whether there is any negligence on the part of the opponent to pay the Page 5 of 24 HC-NIC Page 5 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT compensation?
(E) Whether, in absence of the heirs of Opponent No.2, the application can be proceeded with?
(F) What is the final order?
8. After dissecting on each issue it held in favour of the workmen and awarded compensation as mentioned herein above.
9. In the present appeals, this Court has heard at length, learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, with learned Advocate, Mr. Kirit Patel, for the appellants, learned Advocate, Mr. Dave for and on behalf of learned Advocate, Mr. Trivedi, for Respondent contractors and learned Advocate, Mr. Kakkad, for Respondent victim and his heirs.
9.1 It is argued fervently by the learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, for the appellants that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious error in not considering that no responsibility is of the appellants in paying any amount of compensation particularly when the workmen had begun work prior to the awarding of the contract.
He also further urged that if at all any
compensation is to be given, it should be by
Page 6 of 24
HC-NIC Page 6 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 3/1 and under no
circumstances, can the onus shift on the
appellants. He has further urged that in
appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence, serious error has been committed in interpreting the documents as well as the oral evidence. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments in both the matters.
9.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Kakkad, appearing for the workmen has strongly urged that the injured workman has sustained paralysis of the whole body and his life has become miserable. He further urged that it is unfortunate that workman has not preferred any appeal for enhancement or cross-objections, otherwise he could have been granted the same. The amount which has been awarded by the Court of the learned Commissioner, therefore, deserves no interference. It is based on sound reasonings and the principles of law, which are well settled. He also further pointed out that the order which had been in favour of Respondent contractors while awarding the contract of excavating well had been categorically mentioned that the amount been paid of deposit was already as required on 16.04.1988 and therefore, the assigned work was to be started on either 29.04.1988 or on any other date Page 7 of 24 HC-NIC Page 7 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT on which the Executive Engineer would allocate the site. Therefore, if the work had been started prior to 29.04.1988 that can never furnish a ground to the appellants to deny the liability. He also asserted that without any specific nod from the Executive Engineer, no contractor can dare to enter the site. He further pointed out that bearing in mind the nature of injuries and the age of the victim coupled with income of each of the workmen, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation with penalty and interest. Therefore, this court need not interfere.
9.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing for and on behalf of Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate for the Respondent has urged that the sub-contract had already been given to Respondent No.2, and therefore, the liability can be only of the appellant and in no manner, these respondents can be roped in for grant of compensation. He has sought to rely on the following decisions:
(1) 'BHUTABHAI ANGADBHAI & ANOTHER VS.
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS', 1987 (1) GLR 617;
(2) 'KOLI MANSUKH RANA VS. PATEL NATHA RAMJI', 1992 (1) GLR 37;
Page 8 of 24
HC-NIC Page 8 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
(3) 'UNION OF INDIA VS. BHOJRAJ @
POOJRAJ VACHHA AND ANOTHER', 2990 (3) GLR 2710;
(4) 'GOLDEN SOAP FACTORY (P) LTD. VS. NAKUL CHANDRA MONDAL', AIR 1964 Calcutta 217 (V 51 C 39);
9.4 He has also urged that when these contractors had already assigned the task to another contractor, who had employed the workmen, the workmen surely can claim compensation from the principal employer and this could have been done even without implementing the intermediary employer. In this regard he sought to rely on the decision of the Kolkata High Court in 'GOLDEN SOAP FACTORY (P) LTD. VS. NAKUL CHANDRA MONDAL' (Supra) and urged that whether the accident took place within the premises of the employer or not and the question as to the loss of earning capacity are purely questions of facts and the findings cannot be upset in appeal.
10. These being the Appeals under the W.C. Act, the first and the foremost question that is required to be considered is as to whether the relationship of employer and employee has been established or not?
Page 9 of 24
HC-NIC Page 9 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
The statement of objects and reasons of the W.C. Act provides that for number of years, the generous employers were in habit of giving compensation voluntarily. But, such practice was by no means continued. The growing complexity of the industry with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to the workmen along with the comparative poverty of the workmen rendered it advisable that they should be protected as far as possible from the hardships arising from the accidents. The general principle is that the compensation should ordinarily be given to the workmen, who have sustained injury due to the accident arising out of or in the course of their employment.
Section 3 of the W.C. Act provides for employers' liability to pay compensation if personal injury is caused to the workmen by accident arising out of or in the course of their employment shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. In order to attract Section 3 of the W.C. Act what needs to be established is the injury and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. There must be a cogent connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment and the workman has to say that while carrying out his duty or Page 10 of 24 HC-NIC Page 10 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT incident work thereby it has resulted into an accident.
11. Kolkata High Court in 'GOLDEN SOAP FACTORY (P) LTD. VS. NAKUL CHANDRA MONDAL', while examining Section 3 of the W.C. Act had established the relationship of the employer and the workman to hold that the employer is he, who controls the services of the workmen or is in position of commanding the workman in the manner of performing work when the accident occurred, the relationship of workman and the employer between the respondent and the workmen must be held to have been established.
12. This also gives rise to another question whether the principal employer would be liable to pay the compensation for the accident that occurred at the site of the work carried out by the contractor.
13. The Division Bench of this Court in BHUTABHAI ANGADBHAI & ANOTHER VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS' (Supra) was considering the case of the State Electricity Board, which employed a contractor to maintain line and the person employed by such a contractor dies while discharging his duty, it was held that it will be a mishap that has taken place during Page 11 of 24 HC-NIC Page 11 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT the course of employment of the Board and the Board is liable to pay compensation. Of course, the Board may ask the contractor to indemnify it. It further held that the object of enacting Section 12 of the W.C. Act is to give protection to the workmen and secure compensation from the persons who can pay and in case of an accident such workmen will not be dependent, sometime upon a petty contractor, who will not be able to pay compensation on account of his financial liability. The main object of enacting Section 12 of the Act is to be secure compensation to the employees, who have been engaged through the contractor by the principal employer for its ordinary part of business, which, in the ordinary course the principal employer is supposed to carry out by its own servants. At the same time, this Court referred to sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the W.C. Act which provides that the principal employer will be entitled to be indemnify by the contractor in case the principal employer is required to pay compensation to the employees of the contractor.
In 'KOLI MANSUKH RANA VS. PATEL NATHA RAMJI' (Supra), the opponent was doing the business of jaggery and he had engaged one Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma as his contractors for preparing sugarcane juice by crushing sugarcane.
Page 12 of 24
HC-NIC Page 12 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017
C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT
The applicant was engaged as a workman by Bachu Nanji for doing sugarcane crushing work. It was a par t of the process of preparing jaggery, which was the business of the original opponent, i.e. principal employer. Since, the accident had occurred in the course of employment, the Court held that the liability for payment of compensation would also arise on the part of the original opponent in view of the specific provisions of Section 12 of the W.C. Act. This Court held that a right is given under Section 12 of the W.C. Act to the workmen to claim compensation either from the contractor being an employer or from the principal employer or from both. The relevant observations reads thus:
"11. It appears from the record of the present case and from the impugned award that the attention of the learned Commissioner was not drawn to the provisions of section 12 of the Act. section 12 has material bearings in the present case. It reads as follows "12. Contracting-
(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'principal') in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part Page 13 of 24 HC-NIC Page 13 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except, that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workmen could have recovered compensation and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.
(4) This section shall not apply in Page 14 of 24 HC-NIC Page 14 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management".
12. This Section contemplates a case where a contract is given by a person in the usual course of his trade or business which he would have carried out himself. The question which, now, requires to be adjudicated is as to whether in the light of the facts of the present case, could the opponent be fastened with the liability for the payment of compensation? It is an admitted fact that the original opponent Patel Natha Ramji had engaged said Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma as his contractors for cutting, collecting and crushing sugar-canes which was a part of the process for making jaggery. Admittedly, the original opponent was doing the business of jaggery and he had, therefore, also engaged one Nazirtbhai Abdul as his contractor, for preparing jaggery The opponent has specifically pleaded such a case in his written statement, at Ex. 9. Even in his evidence, at Ex.30, he has clearly admitted that one Bhhaiya Nazir was given contract for preparing jaggery. It is also testified by him in his evidence that Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma were given contract for crushing sugar-cane which was a part of the process for preparing jaggery. According to the evidence Page 15 of 24 HC-NIC Page 15 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT on record, Bachu Nanji and Jayanti Soma, as contractors of the opponent, had to cut, collect and crush sugarcanes so as to make jaggery. In view or the evidence and admitted facts on record, following three propositions would emerge:
(1) That the opponent-Patel Natha Ramji, was doing business of Jaggery, (2) That he had engaged Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma, as his contractors for preparing sugarcane juice by crushing sugarcane, and (3) Nazirbhai Abdul was given contract for preparing jaggery for original opponent.
It is found from the evidence on record that the applicant was engaged as a workman by Bachu Nanji, for doing sugar-cane crushing work. It was a part of the process of preparing jaggery, which was the business of the original opponent.
In the light of these facts, the liability for payment of compensation would also arise on the part of the original opponent. Patel Natha Ramji, being the principal in view of the specific provision incorporated in section 12 of the Act. section 12 prescribes that a person who is engaging a contractor for the execution of a contract work relating to his trade or business^ would be the principal and he would be equally liable for payment of compensation to a workman for personal injuries under section 3 of the Act. The word 'trade' means commercial activity. But the word 'business' has much wider connotation and covers activities Page 16 of 24 HC-NIC Page 16 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT which may not be com mercial. It is an admitted fact that the opponent was doing business of jaggery and for preparing jaggery, he had engaged contractors Bachu Nanji alongwith one Jayanti Soma for cutting, collecting and crushing sugarcanes. The applicant was engaged by Bachu Nanji as his workman for doing the same work which was going on in the field of the opponent. Consequently, a workman who is engaged by a contractor in execution of the contract work which is a part of the business of another person, who would be the principal, he would be liable for the payment of compensation in the event of accidental injury to the workman. Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act were not brought to the notice and were not considered by the learned Commissioner.
13. In order to hold the principal liable for payment of compensation, in the present case, the original opponent-Patel Natha Ramji, under section 12 of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied:
(1) that the principal is carrying on trade or business and in the course of or for the purpose of that trade or business engages a contractor, (2) that the work in question is ordinarily a part of trade or business of the principal, (3) that the accident had occurred Page 17 of 24 HC-NIC Page 17 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT in or about the premises the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work or which is in his control or management, and (4) the accident occurred while the workman was in the course of his employment in executing the said work.
If all the aforesaid essential conditions are satisfied, then the principal can be made liable under section 12 or the Act for payment of compensation under section 3 of the Act. As observed hereinbefore, in the present case, all the aforesaid four conditions are fully satisfied. Needless to mention that there is a purpose and policy in incorporating such a provision in the Act.
13-A. Now the question would arise as to whether in absence of the original employer Bachu Nanji, can the applicant claim compensation under section 3 of the Act with the aid of section 12 of the Act? Answer to this question, spontaneously, would be in the affirmative. In view of the clear provisions in section 12 of the Act, a right is given to the workman to claim compensation either from the contractor, being the employer or from the principal or from both. Thus, option is given to the victim of employment injuries to claim compensation either from the principal or from the employer. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to claim compensation under section 12 of the Act from the principal also and it will be open for the Page 18 of 24 HC-NIC Page 18 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT principal to go for indemnification proceedings under the provisions of section 12 of the Act. Therefore, even in absence of the employer, Bachu Nanji, it will be open for the applicant to claim compensation from the principal. The very object behind the provisions of section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the workman who cannot fight out his battle for compensation by a speedy process. A person who employs others to advance his own business and interest is expected to provide a surer basis for payment of the injured workman than the intermediary, who may often turn out to be a man of straw, from whom compensation may not be available. This is the purpose for which the claimant is given the option under section 12(3) of the Act to claim the compensation either from the principal or from the employer."
14. This Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA VS. BHOJRAJ @ POOJRAJ VACHHA AND ANOTHER' (Supra) also along the line hold that if the accident occurred at the site of the contractor, principal employer shall be liable to pay the compensation. But, principal employer can recover the amount of compensation from the contractor analysing Section 12 and 18 of the W.C. Act.
15. In the matter on hand, it is not in dispute that the contract had been assigned by the appellant to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 3.1 in Page 19 of 24 HC-NIC Page 19 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT First Appeal No. 5501 of 1999 and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in First Appeal No. 5502 of 1999. These contractors gave sub-contract to Respondent No.2, who chose not to appear before this Court. He had engaged Respondent No.1 of First Appeal No. 5501 of 1999 and the deceased, whose heirs are before this Court as Respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 and the workman in another appeal being First Appeal No. 5502 of 1999. It is not in dispute that an office order had already been issued, which has been exhibited vide Exhibit-58 before the learned Commissioner, where specific term is of initiation of work on 29.04.1988 or on any other date when the Executive Engineer allocates the site. All the requisite formalities, in this regard, came to be completed on 16.04.1988. It is the case of the parties that the work had started on 19.03.1988 and the accident took place on 16.04.1988. It is also not in dispute that without Executive Engineer handing over the site to the contractor, no work can be initiated. It is not unusual that when the parties are dealing with one of the departments of the State Government or with the authorities which are construed as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, some of these formalities if not completed would not deter them from initiating the work. More particularly, when it is a matter of handing over the site, it is never Page 20 of 24 HC-NIC Page 20 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT without the knowledge and specific permission of the Executive Engineer that such a task could be initiated. Sub-contractor when through the workmen had started the work of excavating the well and on the fateful day the accident in question occurred, resulting into serious injuries to both the workmen, the stand of the appellant of the contractor having started the work without the permission of the authority has rightly been negated by the learned Commissioner. Even if, assuming that the workmen who had started the on 19.03.1988, i.e. even prior to the fulfilling of the formalities of the contract, the accident having taken place on 19.04.1988, the office order clearly indicates that all the requisite formalities were completed on 16.04.1988.
15.1 In such a view of the matter, the accident can be said to have occurred in the course of employment. The relationship of employer and the workmen has also been duly established, as rightly held by learned Commissioner and as per the provisions of Section 12 of the W.C. Act, it is the sub-contractor, who had engaged both the workmen. The appellants could control the services of the workmen and were in position to command them for performing the work when the accident had occurred. It was Page 21 of 24 HC-NIC Page 21 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT therefore the choice of the workmen to initiate action against the appellants even as well established, the joining of of the main contractor was also not must. This, of course, would not close right of the appellants to initiate action against the contractors for recovery of the amount of compensation but that in no manner, takes away the relationship of employer and the workmen, as required under the W.C. Act. As rightly argued by the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents, the findings which are based essentially on the factual matrix and have been answered on the strength of the oral as well as documentary evidences need not be interfered at the appellate stage by the Court when no error in the ultimate final decision of the learned Commissioner is found by this Court.
16. This Court notices that the W.C. Commissioner has not only taken into account the wages earned by the workmen but also the nature of injuries sustained, the age of the workman, other liabilities and the mighty opinion of the medical experts to reach to the amount of compensation. It is to be noted that this Court also agrees with the submissions made by the learned Advocate, Mr. Kakkad, appearing for the workmen that had the workmen questioned the Page 22 of 24 HC-NIC Page 22 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT amount of compensation by preferring the cross- objections, there was could have been scope for consideration by the Court. However, in absence of any such appeal, when other side had no opportunity to contest that aspect, the award passed by the learned Commissioner deserves no interference.
17. In the result, both the appeals fail and are DISMISSED.
18. It is to be noted that in First Appeal No. 5501 of 1992, an application being Civil Application No. 13064 of 2009 was preferred seeking to disburse and release the amount of compensation in favour of the applicant, the widow of the deceased. However, no amount had been given in favour of the heirs of the workmen. One such application made before the learned Commissioner was rejected on the ground of pendency of these appeals.
It can be noticed from reading that this Court, out of the amount deposited by the appellants being Rs.2,13,032/-, had directed the learned Commissioner to pay Rs.80,000/- to the widow of the Takhubha @ Kanubhai Shardulbhai, namely Maniben, after proper verification. Rest of the amount along with the interest accrued Page 23 of 24 HC-NIC Page 23 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017 C/FA/5501/1999 JUDGMENT thereon was directed to be invested in any nationalized bank in the name of the claimant. The FDR was directed to remain with the learned Commissioner, which had required periodical renewal till the first appeal was disposed of. She was held entitled to the periodical interest on the said FDR till the final disposal of the appeal. Thus, while dismissing the appeals, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation, if not already deposited, before the learned W.C. Commissioner within a period of EIGHT WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the amounts in both the appeals are deposited, same shall be paid to the respective claimants / heirs by way of account payee cheques, within one week thereafter. Such amount can be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly on verifying their bank details and identity.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) UMESH Page 24 of 24 HC-NIC Page 24 of 24 Created On Thu Aug 17 21:03:59 IST 2017