Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1372 (GUJ)

Ronak Ice Cold Storage v. Ashif Muzaffar Sheikh

2017-08-08

Z.K.SAIYED

body2017
JUDGMENT : Z.K. SAIYED, J. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 21.03.2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Labour Court, Junagadh in Workmen Compensation (Non-Fatal) (A) No. 20 of 1997, whereby the learned Commissioner directed the appellant to pay Rs. 40,748/- to the opponent-original claimant with 12% interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working with the appellant-Ronak Ice Cold Storage as a labourer and because of office work, on 05.01.1997, alongwith other employee Ashok Govindbhai, he went on motorcyle and while returning, his scooter was slipped and he sustained injuries on right leg and for that initially, he was admitted in Mangrol Government Hospital. Thereafter, since Orthopedic treatment is not available at Junagadh Government Hospital, he was admitted in his hospital of Junagadh Orthopaedic Dr. Dholakia and it is alleged that he also sustained permanent nature of disability in his leg. 3. Heard Mr. Kishan Prajapati, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the respondent. 4. Mr. Kishan Prajapati, learned advocate appellant assailed the order impugned by submitting that award passed by the learned Commissioner is not just and proper. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in awarding the compensation to the respondent-claimant. The learned Commissioner has committed error in awarding the compensation in absence of any cogent or reliable proof of evidence to prove that respondent-claimant is at any point of time, employee of the appellant and therefore, the award passed by the learned Commissioner is required to be quashed and set aside. Further, the multiplier adopted by the learned Commissioner is also on the higher side. He contended that there is no evidence produced with respect to establish relation between employer and employee. The learned Commissioner did not appreciate the material produced before it and also failed to appreciate circumstances. He therefore, prays to allow appeal. 5. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for respondent-original claimant has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is just and proper. he submitted that the respondent was working with the appellant and the accident in accident took place during the office hours and therefore, relation between employer and employee is established and therefore, the same requires no interference. 6. he submitted that the respondent was working with the appellant and the accident in accident took place during the office hours and therefore, relation between employer and employee is established and therefore, the same requires no interference. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants and having carefully examined the material available on record, this Court finds no substance in the submissions made by learned advocate for the respondent-claimant. So far as observations made by learned Commissioner in the impugned award are concerned, the same needs no comment, they are just and proper as per the case pleaded by the claimant before it and the learned Commissioner has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the respondent-claimant. 7. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal and hence, present appeal deserves only fate of rejection and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned award dated 21.03.2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Labour Court, Junagadh in Workmen Compensation (Non-Fatal) (A) No. 20 of 1997 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. Records and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court, concerned forthwith.