Dismissed

M K Shanmukhappa v. Nagaraja

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/6602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employer appealed against compensation awarded to an electrical helper injured by electric shock while lifting a transformer in 2003, disputing employer-employee relationship. The court upheld the finding based on police records and dismissed the appeal, requiring deposit of compensation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant to deposit compensation within eight weeks; claimant may withdraw entire amount without furnishing security; trial records returned to Tribunal; no costs.

M K Shanmukhappa Vs Nagaraja — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6602 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M K SHANMUKHAPPA S/O KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST

¶8

PROP SRI KALLESHWARA INDUSTRIES

¶9

M D DEVENDRAPPA S/O KALLAPPA AGED MAJOR PROP M/S SRI SHANMUKHAPPA ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING WORKS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O CHICKJAJUR-577523 HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S C.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

NAGARAJA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, COOLIE WORKER (ELECTRICAL HELPER) R/O HONNANA KALVE VILLAGE, B DURGA HOBLI-577523 HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADUGA DISTRICT

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.05.06.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.22/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,01,660/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the order passed in ECA No.22/2014,

¶23

dated 05.06.2018, by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Holalkere, the owner is before this Court questioning the liability fixed by the court below.

¶24

It is the case of the respondent before the court below that the respondent herein was working as a Coolie i.e., Electrical Helper under the employment of the appellant herein i.e., Shanmuka Electricals and Engineering Works and Shri.Kalleshwar Industries which belongs to the appellant before this Court. The Respondent is an employee until the date of the accident i.e., on 02.07.2003. As per the directions given by the employer

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶26

he had gone to lift the transformer planted near tank at Devagiri Village, Hosadurga Taluk along with one Vijay and other Labourers for transformer repair work. During the course of employment at about 7.35 p.m., on 02.07.2003, while he was discharging his duty and lifting the said transformer for repair, at that time all of a sudden he was subjected to electrical shock and fell down from the pole and accident occurred. He had sustained multiple burn injuries.

¶27

The employer has filed his objections denying the entire case of the employee and it is stated that due lack of workload the KPTCL removed persons, and that right from 2002 till 28.04.2002 there is no work going on in the factory and hence the question of giving work to the employee do not arise. They have also stated that they have enclosed the bill to show that the electric supply is disconnected and the meter is taken back by the concerned authority. It is their specific case that there is no employer-employee relationship between the claimant

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶30

and the employer and on behalf of the employee the claimant was examined himself as PW-1 and produced Exhibits-P1 to P13.

¶31

The court below has held that there is employer-employee relationship basing on Exhibit-P5 and P6 that the BESCOM Police have registered a case against the employer and 12 transformers were seized in the industries on 29.01.2015 at about 9.30 a.m. Exhibits-P5 and P6 shows that both Kaleshwara Industries and Shanmuka Electricals And Engineering Work are owned by the employer and the court below has believed that there is employer-employee relationship and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,01,660/-. Aggrieved thereby the employer is before the court questioning the liability.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when they have filed their objections and have specifically taken a stand that there is no employer-employee relationship and when the burden is on the employee to

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶34

prove the relationship, the court below without considering any of this and basing on the FIR registered has held that there is employer-employee relationship. It is submitted that in the criminal case also the appellant was acquitted. It is submitted that in fact as on the date when the accident had taken place the Unit was not working and hence, questioning of engaging the claimant would not arise. It is further submitted that the court below without there being any material has held that there is employeremployee relationship and directed the petitioner to pay the compensation which is contrary to law and evidence on record.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent/employee submits that the court below had rightly considered the material on record and granted the compensation. He submits that immediately after the accident the FIR was registered and a charge-sheet is filed and also the Police have recovered some of the transformers from the industries. The same is disputed by

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶38

the learned counsel for the appellant/owner that the recovery is in the year 2015 but the accident had taken place in the year 2002. According to them as on that date they were not conducting any activities as such engaging or employing the respondent/claimant herein would not arise

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The claimant/employee according to him he is a coolie working with the appellant/owner. The appellant had denied the employer-employee relationship. The court below had given a finding that the respondent herein is working with the appellant, basing on the Police records. In a case where a person is working as a coolie, it is not possible for him to place any other evidence as the salary and other things will be paid to these people by way of cash. The court below has taken into consideration the Police records and in the Police records the case of the claimant herein has been mentioned in the FIR. Later a charge-sheet is

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶41

filed, thereafter the employer is acquitted in a criminal case. Acquittal in a criminal case has nothing to do with the accident that has occurred. The criminal court might have acquitted the employer on the ground that there is no negligence on his part, but here is a case about the accident and as per the averments it has happened during the course of employment. The appellant have not filed any document before the Court. In the absence of any material the court below had rightly held that there is employer-employee relationship and granted compensation. Hence, this court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is Dismissed .

¶42

i) The appellant shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶43

ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10593 MFA No. 6602 of 2018

¶45

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶46

iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶47

iv) No costs.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

M K Shanmukhappa v. Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Shanmukhappa v. Nagaraja

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

Sri Lathesh D Vs Smt B R Shewtha

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs Sri. Siddalingaiah

Smt Kruthi Krishna Vs Mr Keerthi Kumar S

Sri. N. Harish Vs Smt. L. Radha

M/S Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Smt Yashoda Bai

Sunita Nehra Vs Rahesh Nehra