The High Court allowed a second appeal regarding the distribution of workmen's compensation. The court held that the statute governs the award but not the apportionment among Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
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.
RSA No.2493 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2493 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order:07.02.2019
Raghbir Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and another
..Appellants
Versus
Gurpal Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Jitender Singla, Advocate, for respondent no.1
Ms. Swati Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent no.2-Insurance Co.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
Defendants-appellants who are parents of the deceased (grand parents of the plaintiff) have withdrawn the entire compensation payable under the award passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employee's Compensation Act, 1923). The plaintiff-respondent is son of the deceased Gurcharan Singh @ Charan Singh.
First appellate court has ordered that since the plaintiff is Class-I heir along with his mother of the deceased and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount awarded in accordance with Section 8 read with Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has pointed out
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.13 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.2493 of 2016 (O&M)
that the payment in execution of the decree has already been released.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that only parents of the deceased i.e. the appellants herein had filed claim petition which was allowed. Hence, he submitted that since no claim petition was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (son of the deceased), therefore, he is not entitled to any amount. He further submits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 19 of the Employee's Compensation Act.
This court has considered the submissions, however, find no
substance therein.
As regard first argument, the award passed in the claim petition is on account of death of the workmen, namely, Gurcharan Singh @ Charan Singh. Such compensation is to enure for the benefit of Class-I heirs as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Plaintiff-respondent, being son, is one of the Class-I heir.
As regard second argument, on careful reading of Section 19 of the Employee's Compensation Act, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred on the questions which are to be decided by the authority/Commissioner under the Act. The inter-se apportionment of the amount does not fall within the scope of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to
interfere.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
February 07, 2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.13 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the son of the deceased is entitled to a share in workmen's compensation awarded to Class-I heirs.
Whether the inter-se apportionment of compensation damages the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 19 of the Employee's Compensation Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghbir Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
Gurcharan Singh (son of deceased) @ Charan Singh
Gurpal Singh
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
