Partly allowed

Arvind Techno Engineers Ltd. v. Suma Barik

Orissa HC7 Feb 2023FAO/40/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the employer's appeal against a compensation award. It remanded the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh adjudication, directing the summoning of the insurance company (Oriental Insurance) which was not heard previously. An interim sum was directed to be released to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Remand of the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh adjudication including hearing of the insurance company; interim payment of Rs. 2,00,000 to claimants.

Arvind Techno Engineers Ltd. Vs Suma Barik — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.40 of 2019

¶3

Arvind Techno Engineers Ltd., represented through its Authorized Signatory Sri Ravi Shankar Dixit

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Suma Barik and Others

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.K. Mohanty, counsel for Respondents 1 to 6 Mr. A.A. Khan, counsel for Respondent No.7

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 07.02.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the employer – Appellant, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for claimant – Respondents and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.7).

¶17

The employer has come up in the present appeal against the impugned award dated 18^th December, 2018 of the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack passed in E.C. Case No.235-D of 2016, wherein the tribunal has granted Rs.8,47,160/- on account of death of deceased Sanjaya Kumar Barik arising out of and in course of his employment as driver under the employment of the Appellant.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

In the appeal it is disclosed that accidental death of any employer of the Appellant – Company has been duly ensured with Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. by way of the Group Insurance Policy No.214600/48/2015/470 and therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the employer in case of award of compensation amount. However, the insurance company was not made a party before the learned Commissioner and this fact was not even disclosed before the Commissioner in the claim application. The validity of the policy as stated by Mr. Mishra is not disputed by the insurance company though Mr. Khan contends that the coverage of claim is a matter of examination.

¶20

Thus, keeping in view that there is a valid insurance policy in respect of the deceased employee and that the insurance company was not granted any opportunity of hearing before the decision in the claim application, it is felt apposite to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back for fresh adjudication and the learned Commissioner shall decide the case by granting opportunity of hearing to the insurance company as well as to other parties, if necessary. The learned commissioner is further directed to dispose of the claim application within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties, in accordance with law. The parties present before this court are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 1^st March, 2023.

¶21

Considering the status of the claimants who are dependents of the deceased employee and the fact that the entire compensation has

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

been deposited before the Commissioner, it is further directed that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs) be released in favour of the claimant – Respondents upon their appearance before the Commissioner which shall be subject to adjustment in case the claimants succeed. Rest of the amounts shall be kept with the Commissioner till completion of adjudication, which shall be subject to decision of the claim application.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions the appeal is disposed of.

¶25

M.K.Panda

¶26

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Arvind Techno Engineers Ltd. v. Suma Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Techno Engineers Ltd. v. Suma Barik

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

O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Rupanarayan Agrawal

N.I.a.Co.Ltd Vs Sarala Pani

Dusasan @Dusmanta Vs Ashok Ku.Prasad

Lipan Mallick Vs Union of India

Jharana Panda Vs Union of India

Rakesh Nayak @ Rakesh Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha