Dismissed

Javahar Shetkari Sahakarik Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Shrik Kallappanna Awadenagar at Hupari (Helgud) v. Sominath Arjun Rohite and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2012FA/1650/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed three first appeals filed by a sugar karkhana against a compensation award granted by the Commissioner. The court held no substantial question of law existed as the limitation ground was not raised before the Commissioner and the contractor had admitted the employment relationship.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

Javahar Shetkari Sahakarik Sakhar Karkhana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A. 1650......2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1650 OF 2011,

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2011,

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2011

¶6

Javahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana V/s Sominath Arjun Rohite & Ors.

¶7

Mr. A.R.Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶8

Mr. K.B.Jadhavar, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06/12/2012.

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

The Karkhana has assailed the Award passed by the Commissioner [ Workmen's Compensation ], Beed [ For short, ' the Commissioner ' ] granting compensation to the claimants.

¶12

Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶13

the Commissioner has not considered the fact that the application was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. According to the learned

¶14

2 F.A. 1650......2011

¶15

counsel, the relationship of employer-employee is also not proved, so also there is no nexus of the injuries sustained by the claimants with the accident.

¶16

According to the learned counsel, the Doctor is examined, but only on the basis of medical papers, he has given the opinion. The learned counsel submits that the claimant has miserably failed to prove the relationship of employer - employee. The appellant had not engaged the claimant. The claimants can not be said to be the employees of the present appellant. According to the learned counsel, the accident has taken place in the year 2003 and the claim has been filed in the year 2009. There is delay of almost six ( 6 ) years in filing the Complaint. The commissioner has not taken into consideration such an inordinate delay.

¶17

Mr. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for the claimants supports

¶18

the order.

¶19

The Appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act can only be considered on the substantial question of law. The Commissioner on evaluation of evidence, has arrived at conclusion that the claimants have sustained injury in an accident, which has arisen out of the course of employment.

¶20

3 F.A. 1650......2011

¶21

The contractor has admitted the relationship. In view of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant can be said to be the principal employer.

¶22

As far as limitation is concerned, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Department of Telecommunication V/s Deelip Hari Mogle reported in 2008 (S) BOM. C.R. - 228 has held that there is no need of separate application to be filed for condoning the delay.

¶23

The appellants had not raised this ground before the Commissioner that the claim petition is barred by limitation. All the parties have submitted to the jurisdiction and in view of the fact that the Commissioner has entertained the matter and in view of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Department of Telecommunication referred supra, I do not see any substantial question of law being involved in these Appeals.

¶24

The present Appeals as such are dismissed. No costs.

¶25

KNP/F.A. 1650......2011

¶26

4 F.A. 1650......2011

Javahar Shetkari Sahakarik Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Shrik Kallappanna Awadenagar at Hupari (Helgud) v. Sominath Arjun Rohite and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javahar Shetkari Sahakarik Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Shrik Kallappanna Awadenagar at Hupari (Helgud) v. Sominath Arjun Rohite and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirthibai Gabaji Nawale, Died Thr. L.Rs. Shrikant Bhagwat Nawale and Anr. Vs Karikishan Radhakisan Jaju, Died Thr. L.Rs. Sangeeta and Anr.

Naryan Tatya Pawar Vs Anada Kishan Shinde and Anr.

Vijay Baban Kulal Vs the Manager Auto Create Services Pvt. Ltd. Panvel and Anr.

Smt. Meerabai Tulshiram Nerpager Vs Smt. Sisnilabai Mangeshrao Sonde and Ors.

Sambhaji @ Shahaji Namdeo Paithanpagar Vs Zumbarbai Dattu Sanap and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Latur Under Gmidc Aurangabad Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.