Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15098/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15098 of 2010
=========================================================
FATMABIBI
WD/O YAKUB ISMAIL TAP & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
FATMABIBI
MOHAMMED PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK BUKHARI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 29/11/2010
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have
filed this petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution
of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in
Distribution Application No.7 of 2010 whereby the Labour Court has
rejected the application of the petitioners to allow them to
withdraw full amount as awarded by the Labour Court.
It is the case of the
petitioners that the husband of the petitioner No.1, father of the
petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and son of petitioner Nos.6 and 7 i.e. Yakub
Ismail Tap suffered an untimely death at the age of 31 years when he
was driving Truck No.GRQ-1810 belonging to the respondent No.1. The
petitioner, thereafter, filed claim petition i.e. Workmen
Compensation Application No.3 of 1982 in the Court of learned Civil
Judge (S.D.) Surat which was transferred to Labour Court, Godhra
where it was renumbered as Workmen Compensation Claim Application
No.27 of 1996. In the said application, the learned Labour Court has
passed an award for Rs.83,192/- alongwith interest and amount of
penalty of Rs.41,596/- and directed the respondent – Insurance
Company to make the aforesaid payment to the petitioner within a
period of 30 days from the date of knowledge of the said order.
Accordingly, the respondent deposited total amount of Rs.2,36,616/-
in the Labour Court, Godhra.
The petitioners,
thereafter, moved an application being Distribution Application No.7
of 2010 in the Labour Court, Godhra requesting the Labour Court to
allow the petitioner to withdraw the amount. However, the Labour
Court, Godhra by order dated 12.4.2010 allowed each of the
petitioners to withdraw only 15% amount out of the said amount and
remaining 85% amount was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit
with nationalized bank.
It is this order which is
under challenge in the present petition.
Mr.Z.M.Shaikh, learned
advocate appearing for Mr.S.K.Bukhari, for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 7 are very aged 80 to 84 years and
hence the amount awarded by the Labour Court should be disbursed
fully in favour of the petitioners.
In support of this
submission he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of H.S.Ahammed Hussain and Anr. Vs. Irfan Ahammed and Anr,
reported in (2002) 6 SCC 52,
wherein the Apex Court held that in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the amount of compensation awarded in favour of
the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized
bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same
shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by
depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, there
may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend. Based
on this judgment the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted
that in case of petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 7 the amount should be
disbursed in full.
Having
heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having
gone through the award passed by the Labour Court on the
Distribution
Application, the Court is of the view
that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects and passed an
order of withdrawal of 15% of the amount awarded and balance amount
was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit. It is in the interest of
the petitioners as, if the amount is disbursed the same would be
spent and no useful purpose would be served. On the contrary, if
there is some occasion when the amount is required the petitioner
can certainly make an application to that effect before the Labour
Court and at that point of time further disbursement would be
considered. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners is on the
facts of that case and it is not applicable to the present case. In
this view of the matter, the Court does not see any infirmity in the
order passed by the Labour Court. However, it is made clear that in
future if some contingency arises and the amount is required it is
open for the petitioners to move an appropriate application
before the Labour Court for disbursement of the
amount. If such an application is moved the same shall be considered
on merits. It is also open for the petitioners to request Labour
Court to permit the petitioners to withdraw interest that may accrue
on the amount invested.
With these directions
this petition is accordingly disposed off.
(K.
A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top