Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 52 (BOM)

Arun Nagorao Akotkar v. Zunay Tulsiram Bhaskar

2012-01-09

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2012
Judgment Heard Admit Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner Under Workmen's Compensation Act Labour Court, Amravati, awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants in the sum of Rs.2,76,255/-plus 12% p.a. with 10% penalty, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Respondents claimed compensation before the Commissioner in respect of the accident dated 14.4.1997 when the deceased Tulsiram was in employment of appellant. On the said fateful day, he was on work at the stone mining site. A big heap of stone suddenly fell on his person and he died. The deceased was of 40 years of age at the relevant time and was getting Rs. 100/-per day. The appellant appeared in the trial Court and filed his written statement and denied all material averments in the application. In fact, he denied the very relationship with the deceased Tulsiram, namely employer-employee relationship. The parties thereafter went on trial and claimant no.1 adduced her evidence below Exh.30 on behalf of all the claimants, in which she categorically stated about the incident. The appellant after filing written statement did not appear in the Court to contest the proceedings nor led any evidence in support of his case. Finally, the Commissioner made the impugned award. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (i) The appellant had filed written statement and was on record and therefore, the Court ought to have considered the averments in the written statement wherein it was categorically denied that the deceased Tulsiram was in his employment. Even the accident was denied. He also stated that the mining site where the accident is said to have taken place was never allotted to the appellant for carrying out the activities. However, all those pleadings have not been considered by the Commissioner. (ii) The relationship of master and servant has not been at all established and therefore, no liability could be fastened on the appellant as has been done by the learned Commissioner. There was police chargesheet against the appellant in respect of the same incident and the appellant was acquitted and that is why the liability of compensation could not be fastened on the appellant, he having been acquitted. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, I frame following points for my consideration. There was police chargesheet against the appellant in respect of the same incident and the appellant was acquitted and that is why the liability of compensation could not be fastened on the appellant, he having been acquitted. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, I frame following points for my consideration. (a) Whether the respondents-claimants established the relationship of master and servant between the appellant and deceased Tulsiram? ...Yes. (b) Whether there was accident in the course of employment of the appellant? ...Yes. (c) What order? ...Appeal is dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and in particular paragraph no.5 thereof. It appears from the reading of the judgment that after filing of the written statement the appellant remained completely away from the Court proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he had engaged Advocate, namely Shri Verma, but then he expired in the year 2006 and did not inform about further progress of the case and that is why the appellant could not be blamed for non-appearance after filing of the written statement. Thus, even according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant remained absent after filing of the written statement in the labour Court. The above reason given by the learned Counsel for the appellant about his absence, namely the death of the earlier Counsel of the appellant, does not impress me for the simple reason that the Counsel is said to have been expired in the year 2006 and the matter is decided in the year 2010. There is absolutely no explanation from the learned Counsel for the appellant as to why the appellant did not contest the proceedings pending in the Court for number of years. After all the lis is not a routine civil litigation, but it related to the death of the head of the family and the claim relates to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is unfortunate that the claim in respect of the accident, which occurred in the year 1997, has been decided in the year 2010. Be that as it may, coming to other submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that acquittal of the appellant is in a criminal case. It is unfortunate that the claim in respect of the accident, which occurred in the year 1997, has been decided in the year 2010. Be that as it may, coming to other submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that acquittal of the appellant is in a criminal case. The proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act are required to be decided independently and mere acquittal of the appellant in a criminal case cannot influence the merits of the proceedings for determining the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That apart, as earlier stated, the appellant remained completely absent in the Court right after filing of the written statement and did not cross-examine the witnesses nor even entered the witness box to prove his case or defence about non-allotment of mining site. He did not disprove the relationship of master and servant; or about the place where the accident took place; and all the defences taken in the written statement. The pleadings in the written statement cannot be said to be the evidence and the Commissioner was not expected to read the written statement as evidence. The evidence of respondent no.1 was not challenged in the cross-examination and she clearly stated in the evidence about relationship of master and servant with the appellant and that deceased Tulsiram died on the spot on the date of incident. She has also described the incident. Not only that F.I.R. Exh.42 also corroborated her evidence so also post mortem report Exh.43, which was relied upon by the trial Court and in my opinion, rightly. Thus, the evidence of respondents-claimants having gone unchallenged completely, there was no reason not to accept the same and has rightly been believed by the Commissioner. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant should be given chance to contest the proceedings again does not appeal to me because the accident relates to the year 1997 and the proceedings have been decided in the year 2010. Appellant himself is responsible for allowing the proceedings being held in his absence. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act are required to be decided expeditiously in order that the claimants get help as early as possible. The legislation is a welfare legislation and the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued indefinitely. Appellant himself is responsible for allowing the proceedings being held in his absence. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act are required to be decided expeditiously in order that the claimants get help as early as possible. The legislation is a welfare legislation and the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued indefinitely. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that his client should be given chance to contest the proceedings in the labour Court. Hence, I answer the points framed above accordingly. In the result, I find no merit in the present first appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.