Dismissed

C.G Infrastructure v. Master Narendra Sahu and Another

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2012MAC/746/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation against an award granting compensation to the family of a deceased workman employed by erstwhile MPSRTC, holding the appellant liable under the apportionment notification.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

C.G Infrastructure Vs Master Narendra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

SB :HON'BLE SHRt RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J

¶3

MA.(C)No. 746 of2009

¶4

ADpelBant

¶5

Chhattjsgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

¶6

Versus

¶7

Respondents Master Narendra Sahu & Ors.

¶8

POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER

¶9

Sd/JUDGE -12-2012 1

¶10

Sd/-
R.N. Chandrakar
Judge

¶11

-1-

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

8.8:- Hon'bie Shri Rananath Chandrakar. J

¶14

MA.fdNo. 746 of 2009

¶15

ADpellant Chhattjsgarh Infrastructure Non-applicant Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, Raipur (CG)

¶16

Versus

¶17

Respondents Applicant

¶18

Master Narendra Sahu, S/o Late Jagannath Sahu, through Nakulram Sahu, Maternal uncle of Narendra Sahu, next friend & custodian, R/o Farid BuJlding, Rajatalab, Raipur

¶19

Commissioner, Wori<men Compensation Labour Court, Raipur (CG)

¶20

APPEALS UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORMMEN'S COIVIPENSATION ACT. 1923.

¶21

Appearance:

¶22

Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Anurag Verma, counsei fbr the appellant.

¶23

Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No. 2.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Passedon \ December,2012)

¶26

The appellant/non-applicant has preferred this a^eai wder Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order/award dated 14.01.2009 passed by the Commlssioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) (fw shoet 'the CommissSoner') in Case No.63/W.C.Act/2007/FataS, whereby

¶27

^f"
^:{
%il mh.
Ite—^

¶28

-^-

¶29

the Commissloner for Workmen's Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.56,154/- to the appljcant/cteimant. This

¶30

appeat has been heard on the following substantial quest$©nof !aw.

¶31

"Whether 1. leameeS Commissioner, Workmen 'm Compensation Labour Court, Ralpur, was jusflfieel allowing the Glasm application of lf?@ respondlent/applicant No.1 whereas a<Smiftedty the deceased Jagannath Sahu was emp!oyed by erstwhlie MPSRTC and diedl on duty undler its employment before CIDC oame inio existenee"?

¶32

¶33

¶34

"Whether leamed Commissioner, W<»hmen Compensation Labour Court, Raipur was justifiedl in ailowing the daim application of the respondent/applicant No. 1 whereas in view of the not'rfication dated 27.12.2002 issued by the Govemment of India w h regard to apportioiwienf of assets and liabsi'rises of erstwhl!e MPSRTC, the CIDC which came into exlstence w.e.f. 01.01.2003 was liabie for payment of compensation as a whoie whereln the C!DC wss only appointed as Nodal agency of rehabilitafion of working staff of erstwhife MPSRTC in the State of Chhaffisgarh as on 01.11.2000?

¶35

"Whether

¶36

leamed Commissioner, Woiifmen Compensation Labour Court, Raipur was jusWed in allowing the claim appSlcatlon of fhe respondent/applicant No. 1 whereas the ofaim application itse^ is not maintsinabfe sgainst the present appellant/non-applfcsnt CIDC as the CIDC /s nof an empfoyer within fhe meanlng of Section 2 (e) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and further, admittedly the deceased Jagannsth Sahu, the empioyer/workman was employee of erstwhile MPSRTC and died on duty 'in ihe employment of MPSRTC before CIDC came into existence?

¶37

As against the compensation of Rs.72,613.80/- claimed by the

¶38

claimant by filing an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the death of his fether Jagannath In the accident on 27.04.1987, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act has awarded a total sum of Rs.56,154/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application tili the date of actual payment.

¶39

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence !ed before it held that deceased was

¶40

-^-

¶41

under employment of appellant; he was agedabout 29 years at the time of incident and was getting salary of Rs.535/- per month. The Commissioner, looking to the facts and circumstances of the ease, by multiplying 50% of the monthly salary of the deceased wtth the relevant factor of 209.92 (50% of Rs.535^=Rs267.50x 209.92) assessedthecompensatJonasRs.56,154/-. ^..^^::

¶42

Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Anurag Vemta, cour^el for the appellant vehemently argued that the Commissioner has e^red in allowing the claim petition filed by the clainaant in vi@w of the notification dated 27.12.2002 i^ued by the Government of India with regard to apportionment of assets and liabilities of erstwhite MPSRTC. He further argued that the CIDC was only e^pointeel as Nodal Agency of rehabilitation of working staff of erstwhite MPSRTC in the State of Chhattisgarh as on 01.11.2000. He also arguect that the claim petition itself was not maintalnable as the appellant-CIDC is not an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) pf Worttmen Compensation Act, 1923 and cteceased Jagannath Sahu was employee/workman of erstwhile MPSRTC. He has placed reliance in the matter of Industrial Paoer fAssam) Ltd. V. Manaawment Assam Industriaf Devefopment CQrpn. Ltd. Reported Jn ^2007) 3. SCC 73. wherein Supreme Court held that AIDC cannot be branded as "owner" of IPAL and saddle with the liability. Therefore, the order « passed by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2submits that the impugned order/award passed by the Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances, of the present case is just and proper and same does not ©all for any interference.

¶43

¶44

1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties, ^eru^d the impugned award and record ofthe Labour Court.

¶45

A bare perusal of the record goes to show that r^pondent No.l/claimant has examined AW/1-Nakul Sahu and non-appBcarat has examined NAW/1-Navshid Iqbal and NAW/2-Wahid Ali Ansari. NAVY/2-Wahid Ali Ansair, U.D.C., Kortea D@p(A,-Nls

¶46

,.4-

¶47

^'-•^.^

¶48

slated that deceased Jagannath Sahu, father of clalmant, was appointed by Shri C.K. Sinha, the then ©epotManager, Korba Depot vide Ex.D/1. He further stated that at the time of aceidentii deceased Jagannath was getting salary of Rs.535/- per month. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submission of NAW/2-Wahid Ali Ansari, it is crystal ctear that deceased Jagannath Sahu was * under employment of MPSRTC and after carving out of State of Chhattisgarh, M.P.S.R.T.C. was dissolved and presentappellant i.e. CIDC came into existence and by the gazette notification the field staff, buses and stores of the Madhya Pradesh St^e Roaci Corporation have been devided on the basis of'as iswhere is' as on 1st November. 2000. It has been further notWed that , respective States shall be responsible fortheir shareofstafffrom the date of dissolution.

¶49

¶50

Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it is clear that appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The case IPAL (Supra) cited above is distinguishabte on the ground of facts. Ther^ore, substantial question of law is decided against the appellant and no interference is called for in this appeal.

¶51

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be n©orderas to - - costs.

¶52

^_ R.N. Chandrakar Judge

C.G Infrastructure v. Master Narendra Sahu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G Infrastructure v. Master Narendra Sahu and Another

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

Smt.Kamini Gupta Vs Omkar Sahu and Others

Prahlad Vs Tribhuwan Kumar Sahu and Others

Branch Manager,New India Assu.Co.Ltd. Vs Motilal @ Bhkhuram and Others

Jagdish Prasad Kosariya and Another Vs Smt.Urmila Bai Kosariya and Others

Devkumar and Another Vs Smt.Manju Soni and Another

Mohd Arif Vs Sayyad Mansur Ali