Jitendra Gupta Vs Jagannath Dutta

1

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 1494 of 2023

Jitendra Gupta, aged about 39 years, s/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Gitanjali Food Products, Prabhat Colony, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jagannath Dutta, aged about 30 years, s/o, Sri Tarapado Dutta, r/o House No. 128, Swami Vivekanand Road, P.O. & P.S.Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶8

…. Respondent

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash/set aside the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer-

¶15

Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 whereby and where under, Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro directed the writ petitioner being the employer of the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.5,92,222/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 18.02.2019 to till the payment of compensation amount and further to pay the actual medical expenditure of Rs.1,11,551/-

¶16

2

¶17

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

¶18

incurred by the respondent who was the applicant before the Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro.

¶19

The case of the respondent-applicant-claimant is that the claimant-applicant was employed as a machine operator in the food products unit of the writ petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Gitanjali Food Products since the year 2011. On 18.02.2019 while the respondent was working as such in the sewai preparing machine, there was an accident which ultimately resulted in the hand of the applicant cut off from elbow. The respondent was treated in K.M. Memorial Hospital, Chas, Bokaro but he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Kolkata. While being admitted to Apollo Hospital, Kolkata on the way, the health condition of the respondent deteriorated and he was admitted to Durgapur Mission Hospital and while being admitted to Durgapur Mission Hospital, the respondent informed the concerned authority that he suffered accidental injuries in course of his employment in the unit of the writ petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Gitanjali Food Products.

¶20

The Labour Court-cumEmployee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro considered the settled principle of law that the onus is upon the employer to prove the condition necessary for excluding a person from the category of a workman and by that the employer has to establish two conditions, one is that the workman is casual in nature and the workman is not employed for the purpose of employer’s trade or business and the onus is on

¶21

3

¶22

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

¶23

the employer to prove these conditions and thus, considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the applicant who is the respondent of this writ petition; has succeeded in proving that applicant was an employer of the opposite party M/s. Gitanjali Food Products. The Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro upon filing of written statement by the opposite party before it who is the writ petitioner before this Court also considered the contention of the writ petitioner-employer that employer denied that the claimant workman was his employee.

¶24

The Labour Court-cumEmployee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed altogether seven issues.

¶25

Issue no.3 was whether the applicant/claimant is a workman within the meaning of the Act in the Factory of opposite party? and answered the said issue no.3 in affirmative.

¶26

The Labour Court-cumEmployee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro also held that the case is maintainable and there is valid cause of action for the case. The accident arose out of and in course of employment of the claimant-respondent and he is entitled to the amount which has been directed by it to the writ petitioner to be paid and thus made the said direction for payment.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro failed to appreciate the fact that there is discrepancy

¶28

4

¶29

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

¶30

regarding the age of the claimant in the document of treatment of the sole respondent issued by the Durgapur Mission Hospital and Apollo Hospital, Kolkata regarding the age of the claimant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-claimant failed to produce any document regarding payment of salary by the writ petitioner herein. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made by the writ petitioner be allowed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is a settled principle of law that the burden is upon the employer to establish that the claimant is not employee under him but in this case, there is documentary evidence in shape of the treatment records of the victim immediately after the said accident with Durgapur Mission Hospital wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the claimant sustained injury while working with the establishment of the writ petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Gitanjali Food Products. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is highly unlikely that somebody will make a false claim of employment in a small unit immediately after the occurrence of accident. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petitioner-

¶32

5

¶33

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

¶34

employer has not brought the register of employees before the Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro nor produced any particulars of the employee engaged by him. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶35

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been enacted with the objective for providing for the payment by certain classes of the employer to their employee for compensation of injury by accident. Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act provides the forum for appeal to the High Court against the orders of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act but instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ application. As per Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, the sine-qua-non for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act is that there has to be a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Neither there is any pleading nor could any submission be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

¶36

After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is no perversity committed by the Labour Court-cumEmployee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was the employee of the petitioner on the basis of the facts available in the record both oral

¶37

6

¶38

W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023

¶39

and documentary including the documents issued by the Durgapur Mission Hospital wherein immediately after the occurrence of accident, it has been mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries while working in the food products establishment of the writ petitioner.

¶40

¶41

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any substantial question of law or any illegality in the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 as also the fact that there is provision of appeal also under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cumEmployee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶43

Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶44

In view of the dismissal of this writ petition, interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed being infructuous.

¶45

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶46

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16^th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Jitendra Gupta v. Jagannath Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Gupta v. Jagannath Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saumik Dasgupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Dina Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samir Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lokesh Sahu Vs Agriculture Department

Hemant Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chhuma Devi And Ors. Vs Union Of India And Ors.