Appellant challenged the Commissioner's order under the Workmen's Compensation Act regarding a worker's death. The Court held that the deceased was in employment at the time of death and clarified that casual labourers are entitled to compensation.
Appeal dismissed; order of the Commissioner to pay compensation maintains.
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.
FAO No. 115 of 1986 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 115 of 1986 Date of decision: September 08, 2009
M/s Mada Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory ........ Appellant
Versus
Gurcharan Kaur and others .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. J C Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms Meenakshi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the respondent s
-.-
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
This is an appeal against the order dated 28.09.1985 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, vide which, the appellant was directed to pay Rs.40,500/- on account of compensation and penalty and 6% interest on the sum of Rs.27,000/- from the date of death till the date of payment.
While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither the deceased, Gulzar Singh was a regular
FAO No. 115 of 1986 2
worker in the factory, nor was concerned with the working of the factory and, therefore, his death was not caused during his employment. Further, no postmortem was held, which may go to show the cause of death and that the amount paid at the time of accident in cash for the purpose of medicines etc. has not been taken into account.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant and that he continued to be in the employment of the appellant up till the time of his death. It is admitted that the deceased was employed as a worker at the rate of Rs.32/- per day and on the date of death, he was digging a well and while doing so, he was buried underneath due to the sliding of the mud. There is no doubt that the death of Gulzar Singh occurred during the course of his employment with the appellant. No law has been brought to the notice of the Court to show that a casual labour is not entitled to the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
September 08, 2009 mohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a casual labour is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and whether death during employment qualifies as an 'accident'.
Whether the facts regarding service continuity and circumstances of death sustain the Commissioner's order drawing benefits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Mada Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory
Gurcharan Kaur and others
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
