Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Maghar Singh vs Jaswant Singh on 19 May, 1994
In Maghar Singh (supra) the question involved was a pure and simple question of fact. The said decision does not apply to the present case.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Narendra Samal And Anr. on 2 November, 1992
7. To buttress his argument that Appeal without deposit of the awarded amount was not entertainable. Mr. Mohanty has referred to a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Narendra Samal and another reported in 1993(1) T. A. C. 368. The said decision shows that the provision for deposit of the compensation is not mandatory in all kinds of appeals. It is mandatory and fatal only when it causes substantial loss or prejudice to the claimant. The said decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Debaki Swain And Anr. vs Executive Engineer, Electrical ... on 27 February, 1987
A view similar to the one taken by the above decision was taken (see Debaki Swain v. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Bhawanipatna, Orissa State Electricity Board, 1988 A. C. J. 836 (Orissa). Therefore, the plea that there being no loss in the wages, compensation could not have been awarded is not acceptable."
Aslam Sirdar Ahmed Bepari vs Mohamed Ghouse Kutbuddin Dharwadkar ... on 25 March, 1997
Aslam Sirdar's case does not support the submission of Mr. Mohanty. It has been held therein that even a finding of fact which has been arrived at ignoring relevant material is a finding vitiated by substantial error of law and an appeal u/s. 30 of the Act is maintainable.
Chief Workshop Manager (P), Carriage ... vs Akshaya Kumar Rout on 3 July, 1995
"In considering loss of earning capacity in case of 'permanent partial disablement' the comparison between the wages drawn by the workman before and after the accident, from his employer at the time of the accident is not a determinative factor. If that be so, a cunning employer to tide over liability may offer a temporary employment in the claimant workman to deprive the
latter his entitlements under the Act. That would be against the legislative intent. This Court also had occasion to deal with an almost similar case where a plea of existing job allotment and non-reduction in wages was involved. The employer-appellant was the employer in that case.
1