IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, BEFORE THE HON'}3LE MR. JUSTICE V. C %% " M.EA.No.2387/2D04 (TwC) : A 'D BETWEEN: 1. SMT.I-IAVALAVVA W /0 KARABASAPPA I-IULLER HAR1JAN.,,,_ AGED ABOUT 39 $;'EARs,.'*' " jé " " OCC:HOUSEHOLD"Wi)RK, " R/O CI-IALAGERI, A TQ:RANEBENNUR,p-- . DT:I-IAVE_RI.j.,_ ' D O 'XPPAAV PILH./LER @ I-IARIJAN. D/ O «HULLER @ HARIJAN. , 4. .» A.NNAPPA," " - _ C"T'~S/'AKARABASCVA'PT'A I-IULLER @ I-IARIJAN. "/0 E'ARA};EAsAPPA HULLER @ I-IARIJAN. .45. "'~:~UMA," KARABASAPPA I-IULLER @ I-IARIJAN. . __ALL ARE R / 0 CI-IALAGERI TQRANEBENNUR, D1ST:I-IAVERI. APPELLANTS 2 T0 6 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. I-IAVALAVVA W / O KARABASAPPA I-IULLER @ I-IARIJAN i.e., APPELLANT NO.1 _ (By Sri.Madan Mohan M.Khannur,A¢1v.) ~ AND SRLVASAPPA s/0 RAEVEAREDDY GIRIRADDERVL " AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURIjV,.l_ ' _ R/O YENNIHOSALLI, . _ TQ:RANEBENNUR, V 5 DT:I-IAVERI. ' 'T _a ' A ' RESPONDENT (By Sri.V.M.Sheel.air'a-nt, zldvg)' This appe-algis undersection 30 (1) of the Workmei1'é"'Cosnpefisation'Act""against the order dated 28.02.2003 paSs"od.._ in WCA;NF.i57:l998 on the file of the Labour V'_O'flf_lcer_ 'and'.._.V(}o:mmissioner for Workmen's Compensati_on.Act;. I-Iavc,ri"Dist., I-Iaveri, dismissing the claim petition for cornpvensation. ' ' " ._"'This_:'a};;peal 'Coming on for admission, this day, the court ._ ilcVIelive"1~.=:d""tl'1e _ following: JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally in
I of the appeal filed by the claimants before the
‘”2___”.”Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation following the
“”,dismissal of their claim application.
%
J
2. Sri.Madanmohan M.Khannur, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the Commissioner has a
finding that the deceased was not an employee
respondent and based on the _said__ findi’hg,–f;r.1~i’e V’
application came to be rejected. Thegfurther subm.issiont’*mVad:e
is that the deceased Karabasappa__Huller ‘\~’hile”§i?orking in the!’
land of the respondent came in c_olr’;tac–t _vwith’t«heve1ectrical wire
and died. Therefore, the irnpugneci ‘ordeir-betset aside.
3. On the learned counsel
for the respofi the Commissioner has
considered**th,e.A: before him carefully and
has arrived’ at V the deceased was not an
employee under the relspondent herein and the very respondent
~,Was also iexamine’d,as_pRW–1 before the Commissioner apart
exa.minin:g’vtwo witnesses RW»2 and RW–3 and therefore
the finding o’f–th’e”Commissioner cannot be termed as erroneous
— or perverse. . if
a ‘pi’-‘piaving thus heard both sides and on going through the
–flordfer of the Commissioner and the record of this case, I find
}
I5
that the Commissioner has considered the evidence of RW–1
who happen to be the respondent herein and as also RWg2 and
RW–3 and has observed that the respondent has cleajr’l_v’jsta–ted
that the deceased was not an employee under
moreover when large number of co_,ol.i.e,s are””avail’able’ in the’
village of the respondent, there was no njeedivfoi».the:’reslpo’ndent
to go in search of Coolie to some other vi~l.1ag.=: namely«-Chalageri. V L’
village. Therefore, the Commis_sioner.._pafter’ «appreciating the
entire evidence has that the claimants
had failed to establish the employee
under the _:’l’he being a finding on
fact, I seeuno of law for consideration and
therefore Atheapppeal be dismissed. However, the
claimants area at liberty to proceed against the Karnataka
.Electr’icitj?’iBoV}ard if thevso desire in accordance with law.
5. * “Apple.-algstainlds dismissed for the above reasons.
Sd/9
Judge