Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1507 (BOM)

Shrikrishna Saw Mill v. The State of Maharashtra

2011-12-12

S.S.SHINDE

body2011
Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 09-02-2010 below Exhibit U16 and U20 in Misc. W.C.A. No. 7 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jalgaon. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No.2 herein filed Application W.C.A. No. 37 of 1998 for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act against the petitioner. On 24-12-2004 the learned Commissioner partly allowed the said application and thereby directed the petitioner to pay an amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/to respondent No.2. On 27-06-2008 the Commissioner issued recovery certificate. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, there was compromise between himself and respondent No. 2 thereby it was settled to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/. It is further case of the petitioner that, the application was filed before the Labour Court, Jalgaon supported by the affidavit by the parties that the matter has been settled and respondent No. 2 has received the amount of compensation and hence, prayer was made for recalling the recovery certificate. It is further case of the petitioner that, in spite of this, said compromise is not abided by respondent No.2. In fact, total amount of Rs.55,000/was paid to respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, an amount of Rs.55,000/was paid to the Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and in turn, the said Advocate handed over the amount of Rs.55,000/to respondent No.2. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the findings recorded by the Commissioner are perverse. It is further submitted that, the application filed below Exhibit U-16 was under the signature of both the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.2 both have filed separate affidavit below Exhibit U-17, and U-18 supporting to the application below Exhibit U-16. Affidavit is sworned in personal capacity by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that, the application filed below Exhibit U-16 was under the signature of both the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.2 both have filed separate affidavit below Exhibit U-17, and U-18 supporting to the application below Exhibit U-16. Affidavit is sworned in personal capacity by respondent No.2. It is further argued that, once the application is filed on affidavit and it is admitted that the matter is amicably settled and the petitioner had paid the settlement amount and at the same time, respondent No.2 had received the said amount, oral evidence has no any relevance since the documentary evidence was placed on record bringing to the notice of the Commissioner that there was settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 on affidavit admitted that, he received the amount, however, he has taken contrary stand before the Court which is not permissible. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jalgaon has appreciated the documents on record and found that the amount of Rs.55,000/has not been actually paid to respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 invited my attention to Exhibit-G page 49 of the compilation of the writ petition and submitted that, though signatures of respondent No. 2 were obtained on the affidavit, however, actually amount was not received by respondent No.2. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for respondent No.2, the judgment and order impugned in this petition is passed after appreciation of the evidence and findings recorded by the Commissioner are not perverse and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 6. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jalgaon, applications Exhibit U-15 and also U-16 to 19 have been considered by the Labour Court. It is observed that, pursuant to the statements of the parties and documents on record, statement of both the parties on oath was recorded at Exhibit U-21 and U-22. It is observed that, pursuant to the statements of the parties and documents on record, statement of both the parties on oath was recorded at Exhibit U-21 and U-22. However, after recording the statement of both the parties, the Counsel for the applicant submitted at bar that the amount received from respondent will be returned to the respondent and now, the applicant do not want to settle the matter. Recovery proceedings be continued as per recovery certificate issued to the Collector, Jalgaon. It is further observed that, "after considering the statements of both sides and considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel of applicant, it is revealed that, the applicant has not received the amount against his claim as contended by parties in their pursis." Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Commissioner held that, there is no question of recalling the recovery certificate from the Collector, Jalgaon and accordingly, applications Exhibit U-16 and U-20 came to be rejected. 7. Though the Counsel appearing for the petitioner was at pains to argue that, such amount was received by respondent No.2, however, on perusal of the entire compilation of the writ petition, nothing has been placed on record to suggest that such amount is received by respondent No.2. Even before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, no any proof was placed on record in the nature of any entry from the bank account to suggest that the said amount is actually disbursed/paid to respondent No.2. It is needless to mention that, any transaction above Rs.20,000/should be made either in the nature of Demand Draft, Cheque etc. However, it is the case of the petitioner that, the said amount was given in cash to the Advocate for respondent No.2 and in turn, the said Advocate has given such amount to respondent No.2. All these aspects have been discussed in the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. I do not find any perversity in the said findings. As observed above, any transaction above Rs.20,000/should be made either in the nature of Demand Draft, Cheque etc., however, such proof is not placed on record. It is not possible to accept such contention of the Counsel for the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation are in consonance with the evidence on record. Writ Petition stands rejected. Rule discharged.