FA/1147/1985 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1147 of 1985 ========================================================= JAISUKHPARI UMEDPARI GOSAI - Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VM TRIVEDI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HARIN P RAVAL for Defendant(s) : 1, MR YN RAVANI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR A. HAMEED KURESHI for Defendant(s) : 2, MR JD AJMERA for Defendant(s) : 3 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. By
way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order
dated 16.10.1984 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen
Compensation Act at Amreli in Workmen Compensation Case No. 16 of
1984 whereby the Commissioner has awarded half monthly wages of Rs.
148.75 to the original applicant-workman from the date of accident
till the day his disability comes to an end or till further orders
less the amount of pay and allowances paid to him.
2. The
facts in brief are that the appellant was working on a telephone pole
on 20.06.84 under the supervision of respondent no.4 and at that time
about 1 km from the place where the appellant was, a live
transmission wire of Gujarat Electricity Board power supply was
broken and it fell on the telephone line thereby causing powerful
electricity shock to the workman who fell down and received severe
injuries. The appellant was admitted to the hospital and he filed an
application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
whereby the above order was passed. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned
advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
commissioner has committed a grave error in law in holding that the
appellant has received only temporary disablement and that the
appellant is entitled to get only half monthly wages. He has further
submitted that the appellant is not permitted to lead medical
evidence by not giving him reasonable opportunity to give evidence
and that the appellant was under medical treatment and the doctor had
not given a disability certificate as a result of which the appellant
could not produce the same for his disablement.
4. The
trial court has considered the evidence on record and has observed
that the disability certificate has not been produced on record to
prove the permanent disability of the workman. However, there is
neither any averment about the disability in the application filed by
the workman. In that view of the matter, the trial court in absence
of any oral or documentary evidence showing the extent of disability
has observed that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of the
penalty or interest and is only entitled to get monthly wages as per
the law. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and
findings arrived at by the trial court and therefore do not see any
reason for causing interference in the matter.
5. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//