Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 498 (GUJ)

Union of India v. Dhanuben Bhanabhai Patel

2016-03-01

S.G.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellants. Perused the record. The appellant-Union of India has challenged the judgment and award dated 6.5.2011 rendered by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act and Judge of the Labour Court, Valsad in Workmen's Compensation Fatal Case No. 6/2005. By such award, the Commissioner has awarded Rs.2,40,122/- with 6% interest from the date of the application being 27.5.2005 and also directed to pay penalty of Rs.48,024/- for not paying the amount of compensation immediately after the incident, as required under the law. 2. If we peruse the impugned judgment, it becomes clear that though the present appellants have filed written statement before the Court, they never bothered to cross-examine the claimant or his witnesses or to examine their witnesses to prove their reply, which is recorded by the Commissioner in para 2 of the impugned judgment, that the deceased was not on duty at the relevant time. Therefore, when the appellants have never bothered to prove their case before the Commissioner, at present only grievance of the appellants is to the effect that though there is pleading in the form of written statement regarding non-involvement of the victim in an accident during course of his duties, the Commissioner should not have awarded any compensation. I do not see any substance in this submission. There is no any rule that every determination should be at length only. The impugned judgment categorically shows that the Commissioner has specifically disclosed that he has examined oral as well as documentary evidence on record, which includes FIR, inquest Panchnama, P.M. Note and salary slip of the victim to determine that the deceased was serving with the appellants and that claimants are his legal heirs and dependents and that the victim died in an accident during the course of his employment. 3. As regards quantum of compensation is concerned, again the Commissioner has taken care of all relevant documents viz., birth date certificate, salary as disclosed in the salary slip and calculated the amount of compensation as per the law while awarding the amount, as aforesaid. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of the appellants that the Commissioner has taken the issue lightly in deciding such application and awarding the amount of compensation, as aforesaid. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of the appellants that the Commissioner has taken the issue lightly in deciding such application and awarding the amount of compensation, as aforesaid. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected that the appellants herein could not plead or prove that the victim deceased was not in their service or that there was no accident at all or that the victim has never received any injury during course of his employment. Therefore, in absence of any evidence adduced by the appellants, when the Commissioner has relied upon the evidence adduced by the claimants, which is otherwise confirming happening of the incident as disclosed in the FIR and if victim was serving with the appellants, then the appellants are certainly liable and responsible to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim as provided under the statute. 4. In view of above facts and circumstances, when there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the appellants before the Trial Court, I do not see any reason and substance to admit the appeal and to keep it pending for a decade or more. 5. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, proper amount is awarded after calculation of compensation. Therefore, there is no question of reduction of compensation also. In view of such facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the appeal and hence appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, civil application does not survive and it stands disposed of accordingly.