Bombay High Court
Arun Pralhad Patil vs Rukhman Uttam Malode And Others on 6 September, 2019
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
*1* 934wp10948o19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10948 OF 2019
ARUN PRALHAD PATIL
VERSUS
RUKHMAN UTTAM MALODE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Waramaa B.R.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 06th September, 2019 Per Court:
1 The petitioner is the original respondent in Application W.C. No.7/2012 filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation cum Labour Court, Aurangabad under Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
2 By the judgment and order dated 03.07.2017, the learned Labour Court has allowed the application and has granted compensation to the applicants for an amount of Rs.508320/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of the accident till it is actually paid along with 50% of the penalty on the principal amount and Rs.5000/- as costs. 3 The learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously canvassed the grounds formulated in the memo of the petition. He has drawn my attention to the evidence led by the original applicants, which ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2019 01:47:00 ::: *2* 934wp10948o19 would strongly indicate that the petitioner was neither the employer nor the contractor, who has engaged the deceased Uttam Malode. 4 The record reveals that as the deceased Uttam Malode had met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and had passed away, that the applicants had approached the Labour Court by putting forth their claim under the Employees' Compensation Act.
5 The learned advocate for the petitioner had sought a passover after the matter was heard at length on 04.09.2019 to take instructions as to whether, the petitioner had moved an application before the Labour Court seeking deletion from the proceedings as he was not concerned with the accident of Uttam Malode. Today, the learned advocate submits, on instructions, that such an application was not filed by the petitioner seeking deletion from the proceedings.
6 This Court cannot entertain this writ petition as Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act mandates that a First Appeal has to be filed subject to the law of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, coupled with the entire amount as is granted by the Labour Court being deposited in the Labour Court. After obtaining the receipt of such deposit, the first appeal has to be filed.
7 The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that these are peculiar facts involved and from the pleadings of the claimants as well as ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2019 01:47:00 ::: *3* 934wp10948o19 the evidence recorded, it is obvious that the petitioner was not concerned with the accident in any manner whatsoever. The actual employer was not arrayed as the respondent. If the petitioner has to pay such huge amount as is granted by the Labour Court and if the respondents withdraw the same, it would amount to travesty of justice.
8 Since this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition and the assignment of First Appeals is not with this court, no orders can be passed. However, liberty could be granted to the petitioner to convert this writ petition into a First Appeal and the registry of the First Appeal Section would permit such conversion only after the petitioner deposits the entire amount before the Labour Court as is directed by the said court and produces the receipt of such deposit before the registry of this court.
9 So also, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application before the Labour Court while depositing the money requesting the said court to hear the petitioner before disbursing the amount.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2019 01:47:00 :::