Remanded

Smt Nirmal Kanwar v. G M Shri Ram Rayons Kota

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2014CMA/1564/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner order where compensation was paid by the employer directly to dependents without depositing with the Commissioner as required under Section 8 of the 1923 Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the Commissioner to address payment of compensation in strict compliance with Section 8 of the Act.

Smt Nirmal Kanwar Vs G M Shri Ram Rayons… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Nirmal Kanwar & Others Vs. General Manager Shriram Rayons Kota (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1564/ 2004)

¶5

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 10-6-2002 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Kota.

Date of Order:

Septem ber 18, 2014.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶10

Mr. Deepak Goyal, for the appellants. Mr. Anurag Agrawal, for the respondent.

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

This miscellaneous appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Com pensation Act, 1923 now the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the 1923 Act') has been filed against the order dated 10-62002, on the ground that the Employees Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter the Commissioner') has overlooked the provision of Section 8 of the 1923 Act and hence committed a fatal legal error.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

Section 8 of the 1923 Act reads as under: -

¶15

“ 8 . Dist r ibu t ion of com pensat ion .- (1) No payment of compensation in respect of an employee whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to an employee or a person under a legal

¶16

¶17

disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation:

¶18

Provided that, in the case of a deceased employee, an employer may make to any dependent advances on account of compensation of an amount equal to three months' wages of such employee and so much of such amount as does not exceed the compensation payable to that dependent shall be deducted by the Commissioner from such compensation and repaid to the employer.

¶19

(2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto.

¶20

(3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him.

¶21

(4) On the deposit of any money under sub-section (1), as compensation in respect of a deceased employee the Commissioner shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on each dependent in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependents to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied after any inquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependent exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid. The Commissioner shall, on application by the employer, furnish a statement showing in detail all disbursements made.

¶22

(5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased * [ employee] shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependents of the deceased employee or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependent.

¶23

(6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto.

¶24

(7) Where any lump sum deposited with the Commissioner is payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman, or of

¶25

¶26

such person during his disability, in such manner as the Commissioner may direct; and where a half-monthly payment is payable to any person under a legal disability, the Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf, order that the payment be made during the disability to any dependent of the employee or to any other person, whom the Commissioner thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the employee.

¶27

(8) Where, on application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on account of neglect of children on the part of a parent or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependent or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Commissioner as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependent is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Commissioner may make such orders for the variation of the former order as he thinks just in the circumstances of the case:

¶28

Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless such person has been given an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made, or shall be made in any case in which it would involve the repayment by a dependent of any sum already paid to him.

¶29

(9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under subsection (8) by reason of the fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or on behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in Section 31.”

¶30

A perusal of the impugned order dated 10-6-2002 indicates that the Com missioner has held that the amount Rs.1,18,188/ - paid by the respondent com pany to dependent of the deceased workman tantamounted compensation under the Act and proceeded thereupon to award a sum of Rs.15000/ - only to the claimants as additional com pensation for reason of failure of the

¶31

¶32

respondent to adhere to the provision of the 1923 Act to pay compensation. The Commissioner as an authority under the 1923 Act was under an obligation to adhere to the procedure prescribed not only for determination but also payment of compensation to the claimants before him . This has admittedly not been done qua the payment of compensation. Payment of compensation dehors the prescribed procedure could not have been reckoned by the Commissioner as satisfaction of the award amount determined under the 1923 Act.

¶33

In the facts as obtaining, in my considered opinion in view of Section 8 of the 1923 Act having been overlooked, im pugned order dated 10-6-2002 is liable to be set aside. It is so.

¶34

The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to address the issue of payment of compensation to the claimants in strict compliance with law.

¶35

The miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

( Al ok Shar ma) , J.

¶37

ar n/

¶38

¶39

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶40

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Smt Nirmal Kanwar v. G M Shri Ram Rayons Kota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nirmal Kanwar v. G M Shri Ram Rayons Kota

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

Raj Ram Yadav Vs C K Mehtew and Others

Mahesh Sharma Vs G S Sandhu and Others

Gyan Singh and Others Vs C K Mathew and Another

Vishnu Kumar Vs Om Prakash Meena and Others

Chandra Prakash Alias Chandya Vs Hem Chand Soni and Another

Dashrath Chand Lodha Vs M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financ