Dismissed

Nasir and Another v. Harjeet Singh and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2018FAFO/2144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award. The court upheld the Commissioner's rejection of contradictory salary claims and refusal to award interest, finding the calculation based on daily wage provisions for wagers was correct.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no compensation enhancement or interest granted.

Nasir and Another Vs Harjeet Singh and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2144 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Nasir And Another Respondent :- Harjeet Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Dhuriya

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Dhuriya, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarnagar Region, Mizaffarnagar in W.C. Case No.73 of 2011, Nasir and another Vs. Harjeet and another.

¶7

Obviously, this is an appeal for enhancement of the overall compensation amount awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarnagar Region, Mizaffarnagar, whereby Rs.3,86.512/- were awarded to the claimantappellants. Two grounds have been urged in support of this appeal. Firstly; income of the deceased was wrongly calculated. Secondly; no interest was awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner.

¶8

The grounds so made do not carry weight in view of the following reasons that insofar as the factum of salary of the deceased is concerned, the same is based on contradictory claim of the employer and the employee, because both the claimants and the owner vary in their description of the monthly salary. The claimants assert that the deceased used to get monthly salary Rs.4,000/-, whereas, the owner says that he used to pay Rs.1,500/- as monthly salary.

¶9

In this view of the matter, Workmen's Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarnagar Region, Mizaffarnagar was justified in basing his analysis on the monthly amount Rs.3451.72 as fixed in the Workmen's Compensation Act while passing the impugned award and he instead of drawing average of the above two figures (Rs.4000/- and Rs.1500/- respectively) based his calculation on the monthly income as provided for daily wagers for calculation of the income in the Workmen's Compensation Act. That way, he committed no mistake.

¶10

Insofar as point of interest is concerned, relevant description finds mention in the award itself which shows that the same shall be realized from the owner of the offending vehicle, for certain reason which has been described in the body of the impugned award, which finding being just and consistent is sustained.

¶11

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.4.2018

¶13

rkg

Nasir and Another v. Harjeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir and Another v. Harjeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nannu Mal and 4 Others

the oriental insurance company limited Vs kalimunnissan and Anr.

Smt. Sudha Singh and Another Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Saleem Vs Smt. Seema and Another

State of U.P. Vs Hari Narain and Ohters

Anurag Tiwari Vs State of U.P.