High Court Karnataka High Court

Shekappa Hanamappa Kori vs Sharanabasappa Lingappa … on 17 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shekappa Hanamappa Kori vs Sharanabasappa Lingappa … on 17 June, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh


@

III THE HIGH COURT 0?’ KARIATAKA AT

DATED um um 17′”! nm: at Jun j L’

run uonrnw uR.ausnm:H;£§.n;u;t:::§tf ‘ V ‘

BETWEEN:

SHEKAPPA HANAMAPPA KORI -.
AGE: 31 YEARS, 0CC:TARl ‘LIK 5 . f ~ V
R10 KOTBAL, RON T- ‘V

TALUK: RON, D!’S’1’RIC’I’: GADAG

(BY SR! NAR&B{1§C:AS;1fs.P§Si?%GRf;’j§;BVQ§§ATE.}

1 SHARANABASAPFA 1.1b:gAPPA_
CHi3I.ACHGU’fiD.A’« — .

AGE’:_MAJOR. BUSINESS
R/O RON _ ‘–

TAi.lJicRQi~1, n13r1’e:_c*:?:.\ JGADAG

_.% V2 DIWSICNAL MANAGER

-?r1″-m_mwA.:Nn1A co. LTD.
A ‘ . _,SAVI’i’»Ri .SA5,)AN, opp. KI’l”I’EL common
TI3VHA’RWAi),,_DI$’PRIC’P: nuaaeww ..

” . (I3? svsém. :$:éR1xAm’14, ADVOCATE FOR 12-2+,

– :32.-.1 SERVED.)

TH”lS_ MFA ES FILED U/S. 30(1) OF’ W.C.AC’I’ AGPJNSI’

JLJDGMEM 8; 0129212 DATED 25/1/2007 PASSED I-N
I'{AANAF’A.PRA.I2/O6 on THE ma 0? THE LABOUR OFFICER

6; ‘”.C0i\i[MISSIO’NER FOR VIORKMEPPS COMPENSA’I’}ON,

.__ GsADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE cwu PE’I’t’I’1ON FOR
T , acorapmmssmon AND sasmzcs ENHANCEMENT or»
“C-OMPENSA’I’ION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING OH LA. THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

This appeal by the claimant/workman is

agamst the judgment dated 25.01.2007 A’

Commissioner for Wor1

District, Gadag, in w.c. Case No. ‘ V e

2. There is a delay of more t.hén i’our

filing the appeal. I.A.I/2007 rot rézafipixkkor

3. I counsel for the
tlm amdavit filed

in support of”-me I am not satisfied with

“the the inordinate delay of

L%m%pn§%eth.a;zifcs1r%em9nms (130 days) in filing the

Hoovcfer, interest of justice, I have heard the

* fan’ the appellant on the merits of me

perused the impugned judgmtmt. The sole

‘I§:on.§:eI1tion urged by the learned counsel is that the

«fiommissioner for Workmclfs Compensation had erred

inlawinfixingthemoazthlywageofthe

‘W

Zfi_Z

appellant/claimant at Rs.2,500/-. In the abscnqe7,:.:c3f_

any acceptable evidence re. monthly wage-__ ;”€’1f’ _

appellant/claimant, the Commissitmcr f: 3

relied on the minimum wages

fixed the monthly wage of the

Rs.2,500/-. Accordingly’, I find the
dcterminafion of mont}1;i3.r..V:’;va.§%c
No substantial
in this KPPCQL ‘V I.A.I/2007
and the VI } A

Sd/-o

.5

A’ ….. <4 . Iudgg

R;