Dismissed

The Director v. Smt. K. Sudha

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026MFA/7381/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an employer's appeal against a Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of Rs 3,51,080 with 12% interest to the widow and children of A. Gopinath, an Assistant Machine Minder who died on 06.07.2002 after falling ill on duty. The employer argued the death resulted from alcohol addiction, not employment, but produced no evidence that the deceased was absent from work on the date of the incident. The Court held that the grant of compassionate appointment to the widow implied the death occurred in harness, and the Commissioner's findings were not perverse; therefore no substantial question of law arose under Section 30 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; deposit amount ordered to be transferred to jurisdictional court for disbursement.

The Director Vs Smt. K. Sudha — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50471 MFA No. 7381 of 2013

¶3

CNR: KAHC010341172013

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7381 OF 2013 (WC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR PRINTING, STATIONARY AND PUBLICATION GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS NO.6/E, 1^ST CROSS KIADB, PEENYA 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE - 59.

¶11

THE JOINT SECRETARY PRINTING, STATIONERY AND PUBLICATION GOVERNMENT OUTER ZONE PRINTING PRESS MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE - 59.

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SMT.ANITHA GIRISHA, HCGP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

SMT.K.SUDHA W/O LATE A GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶17

SRI G NITESH S/O LATE A GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶18

SRI G SRINIVAS S/O LATE A GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:50471 MFA No. 7381 of 2013

¶22

CNR: KAHC010341172013

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.59/1, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, MATHIKERE BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA N S., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED IN WCA/ECA/FC/CR 4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,51,080/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A FROM 31.01.2011 TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶27

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

Challenging judgment and award dated 22.03.2013 passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Bengaluru ( Commissioner ) in ECA no.ECA/FC/CR-4/2011, this appeal is filed.

¶31

Smt.Anitha Girisha, learned HCGP for appellantState submitted that appeal was filed against award passed by Commissioner on ground that award was passed without proper finding about occurrence of incident in course of and out of

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:50471 MFA No. 7381 of 2013

¶35

CNR: KAHC010341172013

¶36

employment. It was submitted, as per claimants-wife and children of A. Gopinath, while he was working as Assistant Machine Minder at Government Press, Peenya, on 05.07.2002, he developed complications due to hemorrhagic shock and hematemesis and despite being taken to Kirloskar Hospital, he died on 06.07.2002. It was submitted, deceased was addicted to alcohol and died on account of complications arising out of said addiction. Therefore, incident cannot be stated to have occurred in course of and out of employment. There was no causal connection between death and occupation and therefore, submitted that substantial question of law would arise for consideration and sought for answering same in favour of appellant and to set aside award by allowing appeal.

¶37

Sri Mallikarjuna NS., learned counsel for respondent-claimants on other hand would oppose appeal. It was submitted, appellants had not led any evidence to substantiate that on date of incident, workman was not on duty. Claimants had very clearly pleaded that incident had occurred while deceased was on duty and Commissioner, on basis of material and record passed award. It was submitted,

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:50471 MFA No. 7381 of 2013

¶41

CNR: KAHC010341172013

¶42

whether incident of death occurred in course of and out of employment was a question of fact and no substantial question of law would arise for consideration and therefore, appeal under Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly the Workmen's Compensation Act) ( ECA ) would not be tenable. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶43

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and record.

¶44

From above, occurrence of incident leading to death of A. Gopinath working as Assistant Machine Minder in Government Central Press, Peenya, occurrence of incident leading to his death on 06.07.2002 is not in dispute.

¶45

In claim petition, claimants sought to rely upon Survivorship Certificate, Ration Card, Death Certificate, Pension Order, Pay slips and Office Order about grant of compassionate appointment to claimant no.1. Perusal of impugned award would indicate that before Commissioner, appellants-State took up a contention that death was due to non-occupational, selfinflicted hazard i.e., addiction of alcohol and incident did not

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:50471 MFA No. 7381 of 2013

¶49

CNR: KAHC010341172013

¶50

occur while he was in employment. However, neither before Commissioner nor before this Court, State has produced any record to show that on date of incident i.e., on 05.07.2002, deceased was not on duty.

¶51

Further, grant of appointment on compassionate ground to wife of deceased would imply that death of deceased was in harness. Consequently, when there is some basis for findings of commissioner, findings cannot be stated to suffer from perversity so as to give rise to substantial question of law. Hence, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, appeal is dismissed .

¶52

Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to jurisdictional Court for disbursal.

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

The Director v. Smt. K. Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director v. Smt. K. Sudha

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