High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed two appeals against an order of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act. The court held evidentiary findings regarding employment were not perverse and decided not to interfere with the Commissioner's decision not to impose penalty.
Appeal No. 180 of 2012 dismissed; Appeal No. 274 of 2012 disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 180 of 2012 & FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 274 of 2012
1. FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 180 of 2012
Between:-
1. SH. ANIL DOGRA, S/O SH. MEHAR CHAND DOGRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. TIURI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
2. SH. PARTAP CHAND CHAUHAN, S/O SH. KUNDAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. CHHUPAN, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. SH. LOHRI SINGH, S/O SH. CHOPAL LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASHAMNI, P.O. TIKKAR, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
4. SH. KHAZAN SINGH, S/O SH. KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. SIDRON, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
5. SH. CHAMAN LAL, S/O SH. DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOHAR, P.O. DOBA,
2
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
6. SH. SAIN SINGH, S/O SH. MOHINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALNA, P.O. CHALNAIR VIA KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
ALL ARE PARTNERS OF FIRM M/S ANIL KUMAR DOGRA & COMPANY AT KADRUN/BALAG, P.S. THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI R. K. GAUTAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MS. MEGHA KAPOOR GAUTAM, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SHEELA DEVI, WD/O SH. CHAMAN LAL
2. MASTER SANNI KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. CHAMAN LAL
3. KUMARI SAPNA DEVI, D/O LATE SH. CHAMAN LAL
4. SMT. SUNITA DEVI, MOTHER OF LATE SH. CHAMAN LAL RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS THROUGH THEIR MOTHER SMT. SHEELA DEVI NATURAL GUARDIAN. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAYAR BHASI, P.O. DOBHA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
….RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SHRI T. S. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
1. FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 274 of 2012 Between:-
1. SHEELA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE CHAMAN LAL
2. MASTER SANNI KUMAR, SON OF LATE CHAMAN LAL
3. KUMARI SAPNA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE CHAMAN LAL
4. SMT. SUNITA DEVI, MOTHER OF LATE CHAMAN LAL, APPELLANTS NO. 2 AND 3 THROUGH THEIR MOTHER SHEELA DEVI, APPELLANT NO. 1. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAYAR BHASI, POST OFFICE DOBHA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI T. S. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE) AND
1. SHRI ANIL DOGRA, SON OF SHRI MEHAR CHAND DOGRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFICE TIURI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. SHRI PARTAP CHAND CHAUHAN, SON OF SHRI KUNDAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
4
CHHUPARI, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. SHRI LOHRI SINGH, SON OF SHRI CHOPAL LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASHAMANI, POST OFFICE TIKKAR, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
4. SHRI KHAZAN SINGH, SON OF SHRI KRISHAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SIDROTI, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
5. SHRI CHAMAN LAL, SON OF SHRI DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEHAR, POST OFFICE DOBA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
6. SHRI SAIN SINGH, SON OF SHRI MOHINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALN AT KADRUN/BALAG, POST OFFICE THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. (BY SHRI R.K. GAUTAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MS. MEGHA KAPOOR GAUTAM, ADVOCATE)
….RESPONDENTS
Reserved on: 14.07.2021
___________________________________________________________ These appeals coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court passed the following:
5
J U D G M E N T
Both these appeals are preferred against judgment, dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, H.P., exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in WC No. 4-2 of 2011/2005, titled as Smt. Sheela Devi and others Vs. Shri Anil Dogra and others. Appeal No. 180 of 2012 has been filed by the respondents before the learned Commissioner, whereas Appeal No. 274 of 2012 has been filed by the claimants.
Claimants filed a Petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, inter alia, on the ground that late Shri Chaman Lal, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 4, was working as a Salesman in the wine shop of respondents, before the learned Commissioner, which was functioning under the name and style of M/s Anil Kumar Dogra and Company at Kadrun/Balag, Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P. Respondents in the Claim Petition were stated to be the proprietors of the said wine shop. In addition to the said wine shop, one more room was hired by the owners of the wine shop to store wine and deceased Chaman Lal alongwith another Salesman used to stay in that room and also used to watch and ward the wine property of the
6
respondents. On the night of 06.11.2002, when deceased Chaman Lal was sleeping in the said store room, fire broke out in the same and the wine bottles were gutted in fire. Deceased Chaman Lal also lost his life in the said incident. He was a young man 27 years of age. As per the claimants, he was the sole bread earner of the claimants at the time of his death and was being paid monthly salary to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. Respondents were aware of the death of the deceased in the course of his employment, yet they did not comply with the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, thus, forcing the claimants to file the claim petition, vide which, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest.
7
“1. Whether deceased Shri Chaman Lal was employee of the M/s Anil Kumar Dogra and Company and had died during the course of employment of M/s Anil Kumar Dogra and Company? OPA
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPA
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and pursue the petition or not? OPR
4. Relief.”
their respective contentions, the issues were answered as under:-
“Issue No. 1: Yes.
Issue No. 2: The petitioners are entitled for the recovery of Rs.4,33,820/- alongwith 12% interest.
Issue No. 3: No.
Relief: The petition is allowed as per operative part of the judgment.”
8
wine shop in the year, 2002. She received a telephonic message from his working place that fire had broken out in the store near the wine shop where her husband was sleeping on the night of 06.11.2002 and he had died in the incident. Her husband was shifted to hospital where her father-in-law and other villagers went and from where, after conduct of the post mortem, the dead body was brought to the native place for cremation. She stated that the respondents were paying Rs.5000/- to the deceased as a salary and that the deceased was the sole bread earner from the family members. She also deposed that respondent No. 5 Shri Chaman Lal had paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to her to perform the last rituals of her husband and except the said amount, no other amount was paid to her, as compensation. Learned Commissioner held that the claim was substantiated by the statement of PW-1-Shri Harnam Singh, the President of Gram Panchayat Balhag, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P., who deposed in the Court that in the year 2002, respondents were running a wine shop in his village Kadrun/Balag and deceased Chaman Lal was deputed as a Salesman in the said shop in the month of October, 2002 and fire broke out in the store room of wine shop on 06.11.2002. He deposed that it was brought to his knowledge in the morning on 07.11.2002 that the Salesman of the respondents Shri Chaman Lal had died in the fire which broke out. Similarly, Pardeep Kumar (PW-2), who was a resident of Village Kadrun/Balhag also deposed on oath that respondents were running a wine shop in their area
9
and Chaman Lal was engaged as a Salesman, who had died in the unfortunate incident.
10
the provisions of Section 4 of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and by relying upon Clauses (a) and (b) thereof, assessed the wages of the deceased by deeming the same to be Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying the relevant factor of 216.91, it held the compensation to be Rs.4,33,820/-. It also ordered the payment of interest @12% per annum from the date of the incident, by further ordering that amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which already stood paid by the respondents, be adjusted towards Rs.25,000/-, as funeral expenses. The judgment so passed by the learned Commissioner has been assailed both by the claimants and the respondents.
“Whether the findings returned by the learned Commissioner that deceased was an employee of the appellants herein are perverse findings being contrary to the record?”
11
that respondents in the Claim Petition were running a wine shop under the name and style of M/s Anil Kumar Dogra and Company at Kadrun/Balag, Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in which deceased Chaman Lal was engaged as a Salesman in the month of October, 2002, who lost his life in a fire incident, which took place on the night of 06.11.2002 in the wine store room of the respondents. Claimant Sheela Devi, who entered the witness box as PW-5 has also proved this fact on record. A perusal of the cross-examinations of these witnesses demonstrates that the respondents have not been able to discredit the statements of these witnesses, nor it can be deciphered from the same that these witnesses had not deposed correctly before the Court. On the other hand, respondents produced only one witness, i.e., RW-1 (respondent No. 5-Chaman Lal), who in his crossexamination admitted the fact that he not only informed the father of the deceased of the incident, but accompanied him to the hospital and also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants, as funeral expenses. These facts have been taken note of and dealt with by the learned Commissioner in the judgment passed by him and it is on these basis that he had returned the finding that it stood proved on record the deceased was an employee of the respondents. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Commissioner that the deceased was an employee of the appellants in FAO No. 180 of 2012 are perverse findings being contrary to the record. On the contrary, these findings are duly borne out from the record of the case. The substantial question of law is answered
12
accordingly and appeal No. 180 of 2012 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 274 of 2012
of law:
“Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in not imposing penalty under Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act?”
13
and in the event of failure to do so, it ordered initiation of action under the provisions of Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act. This Court is of the considered view that at the time of passing of the judgment, learned Commissioner took a conscious decision not to impose penalty under Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. That being the case, in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court does not intend to interfere with the findings so returned by the learned Commissioner, as this Court is of the view that the claimants have been compensated reasonably by the learned Commissioner. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly and the appeal stands disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
September 03, 2021
(bhupender)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings that the deceased was an employee of the appellants are perverse being contrary to the record?
Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in not imposing penalty under Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Kumar Dogra & Company
Sheela Devi
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
