Dismissed

State of U.P.and Others. v. Fareed Husain and Others.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023FAFO/258/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed an appeal against a Workmen Compensation Commissioner's award. The court rejected the argument that employee negligence barred compensation and affirmed the father's entitlement as a dependent heir of a deceased employee killed in the course of duty.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 29.08.1997 was affirmed; appellants to pay any shortfall in deposited amount with up-to-date interest within 60 days.

State of U.P.and Others. Vs Fareed Husain… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58986

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 258 of 1997

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P.And Others. Respondent :- Fareed Husain And Others. Counsel for Appellant :- M.P.Singh C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- D.P.Dubey,M.A.Siddiqui,S.K.Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants.

¶7

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 29.08.1997 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner & Assistant Labour Commissioner in W.C. Case No.4 of 1996 wherein, in a death case, a sum of Rs.87,980/along with damages to the tune of Rs.43,990/- along with the interest @ 6% p.a. has been awarded.

¶8

The record indicates that the instant appeal was admitted on 23.08.2001 on substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal at Serial Nos. I, IV & V.

¶9

The submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while assailing the impugned award is primarily that the deceased had died on account of his own negligence and for the said reason his heirs were not entitled to the grant of compensation. It is further urged that the father of the deceased does not come under the purview of word "dependent" as defined under Section 2(d) of the of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and thus, the award declared in favour of the father of the deceased was not appropriate. It is further

¶10

urged that while awarding the compensation, the methodology as well as the factor as provided in the Act has not been appropriately adopted.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and before adverting to the same, it will be worthwhile to take a look at the facts giving rise to the instant appeal.

¶12

The petitioner-father of the deceased seeking compensation on account of death of Sayed Hussain, instituted a petition before the Employee Compensation Commissioner which was registered as W.C. Case No.94 of 1996. It was pleaded that the deceased Shri Sayed Hussain was employed with the respondents on the post of Road Roller Driver. On 08.04.1995, the deceased was crushed under the aforesaid Road Roller and he met his maker. The F.I.R. of the aforesaid incident was also lodged and it is in the aforesaid background that the claim petition claims to be filed. The claim petition came to be contested, primarily on the ground that the deceased had expired on account of his own negligence. The parties led their respective evidences and an attempt was made by the respondents-defendants to establish the negligence of the deceased. However, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner after considering the facts and circumstances and noticing that there was no dispute to the fact that the deceased was an employee of the respondents-defendants and that he had died while performing his duties and for the said reasons, the sum of Rs.87,980/- and damages to the tune of Rs.43,990/- along with 6% p.a. interest was awarded by means of the award dated 29.08.1997.

¶13

It is in the aforesaid backlog that the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants has raised the aforesaid submissions.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and after perusal of the material available on record, first and foremost it is to be ascertain that whether there was a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In this background, apparently there is no denial of the fact that the deceased was an employee of the appellants. The record also indicates that it was not disputed by the appellants that the death took place on 08.04.1995 while the deceased was performing his duties.

¶15

Apparently in view of the aforesaid two aspects, it would be clear that the deceased was an employee of the appellants and he died during the performance of his duties as such, it could not be said that merely because the deceased was negligent, his heirs would not be granted any compensation. The purpose of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is to provide succour and woe to the family of the deceased in case if the employee died during his duties hours. It is a social beneficial legislation and taking a strict view as suggested by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants would result in incongruous results and this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The record would further indicate that the claim petition was filed by the father of the deceased and as such, being the legal heir, he was entitled to move the aforesaid petition. Here the issue is not that it is only the dependents who would be entitled for compensation and not the father of the deceased, for the reason that the deceased was a bachelor and it was his parents who naturally being the legal heirs as well, were, dependent on the deceased and was clearly entitled to file the claim petition.

¶16

This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and moreover there

¶17

does not appear to be any error while granting the award, as such the issues which have been raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants does not give rise to the substantial question of law.

¶18

Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, which is, thus, dismissed.

¶19

The award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 29.08.1997 is affirmed. Any amount deposited with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner shall be released in favour of the claimant-respondent and in case of any shortfall, i.e. after calculating the awarded sum with up to date interest, shall also be made good by the appellants before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner within a period of 60 days from the date a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed . However, there is no order as to cost.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2023

¶22

S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P.and Others. v. Fareed Husain and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P.and Others. v. Fareed Husain and Others.

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

Rameshwar Kushwaha Vs Munshi Lal and Ors.

Bechan and Others Vs Shyam Lal

Union of India through General Manager N.E.R.Gorakhpur Vs M/S Hari Trading Company Bareilly

Shev Chandra Lal Vs the Punjab and Sindh Bank and Others

Charan Dayal Nigam Vs State of U.P. through Collector

Mehu Ram Vs Ram Avtar S/O Kesari Nandan