Dismissed

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana Ashoknagar Dist a.Nagar v. Mandabai Popat Changhate and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012WP/4468/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge High Court order dismisses a writ petition assailing an order condoning a delay of 18 months in filing an application for workmen's compensation. The court held that since the legislation is beneficial to claimants, the merits need not be considered at the condonation stage and the Commissioner appropriately exercised discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP 4468/2012

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PTITION NO. 4468/2012

¶6

MANAGING DIRECTOR ASHOK SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA AHOKNAGAR DIST. AHMEDNAGAR VS.

¶7

MANDABAI POPAT CHANGHATE AND ANOTHER

¶8

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

Shri V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶12

DATED : 22^nd AUGUST, 2012

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner has assailed the order passed by

¶15

the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s compensation condoning the delay in filing application for compensation.

¶16

Mr. Upadhye learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay has been condoned by the Commissioner without considering sufficient cause. In fact, no sufficient cause exists. Even in the application made before the Commissioner, the respondents have not put forth sufficient cause.

¶17

According to the learned counsel, there was inordinate delay of 18 months which could not have

¶18

WP 4468/2012

¶19

¶20

been condoned as a matter of course.

¶21

With assistance of learned counsel, I have gone

¶22

through the order and application made.

¶23

The provisions invoked by the respondents are part of the social welfare legislation. It is beneficial piece of legislation. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. At the stage of the application for condonation of delay, merits of the mater are not required to be considered. The applicants have given reasons. Applicant No.1 is rustic illiterate woman and the applicant No.2 is son of the deceased who had just attained age of majority. Taking into account the reasons stated, the Commissioner has appropriately exercised his discretion in plausible manner. In view of that, the writ petition stands dismissed with no order as

¶24

to costs.

¶25

(S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶26

ts k/

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana Ashoknagar Dist a.Nagar v. Mandabai Popat Changhate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana Ashoknagar Dist a.Nagar v. Mandabai Popat Changhate and Anr.

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

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Parvatihbai Vittalrao Ingale and Ors.

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr President and Anr. Vs Satyabhamabai Govind Mirkale and Anr.

Mohan Eknath Upasani Vs Shri Saibaba Sansthan Vishwasta Vyavastha, Shirdi

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. Vs Kakasaheb Sadu Dige and Anr.

Bharat Petroleun Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Samta Nagri Sah. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon and Ors.

Ashok Limbraj Shinde Thr Gpa Nilawati Ashok Shinde Vs Vishnu Murlidhar Shinde