BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEARAVIND'KUMAAR_ [ Sri Gopalakrishna K., _ _ S/0.Shankaranarayan*a..Bhatp' -. A . Major, r/o.Ki1akachi1--EQi:::se.A_ " ' A Doddathota Post, ' KemrajeVi11age,» ' Sullia _ u E D KDistri<_:1:._ . 'V .. Appellant (By Sriv_A_1ju'r*1 M Nataraj, Adv.) AND A A A 1. sms:..Gandhai.§ A _ . W / 0.1at_e Rangaswamy. R'a.m'esh, """ _V Aged, x12» years. Aged-.i_1A0 years. 4. "Sdwmya, Aged 8 years, . ""--VFA?ési;)0ndents 1 to 4 are a1} 2 ___R/o.Koudicharu, M.F.A N0.7919:}'..20fJ"7_ Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada Dist. (Respondents 2-4 being minors
are represented by their mother
respondent No.1)
5. Smt.Dhanalakshmi,
Mother of late Rangaswamy;
R/ o.Koudicharu, Puttur Taluk, . = ~
Dakshina Kannada Dist’.”–~ Respondents
(By Kum.Ambika Bhat, Adv. Adv.)
This MFA is ri1e::.iinCI£r 30(1) of the
Workmen’s Cornpensation Act; l’Q;23–j,_~. praying to set
aside the order’ dated 225.2007 in«._WCA:SR 6/2007
passed by t_he’};La.bour€p Officer’–.”&…..Comm1ssioner for
Workmen’s “Ccm’per;satiQn–,.. _M’arr.galore.
This c:€>rningp”*on lforwadmission this day, the
court de1i:.’ere’d’.t.he’ fo1lo_v”vi.ng: f
..ll:””—-…il{lDGMENT
‘l’h~oughl” matter: is listed for admission, same is
taken final disposal by consent of learned
lAdvocatesfapppearing for both parties.
appeal is directed against the judgment and
it dated 22.5.2007 in No.WCA:SR 6/200″/(F) passed
it the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen
M
Compensation, DK, Sub-DiVision–2, Mangalore,
whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents
came to be allowed in part and compensatiopniipof
Rs.1,62,’766/– with 12% interest p.a. from
award till the date of deposit questiiionieid: ii
appeal.
3. The parties are referrecilV’Vi’t.o_i’i’a_s tanks in
the Trial Court. The fac;ts’~p«i.n to the filing
of this appeal areas A h
4. The ‘tespetmietitte hefetn ‘being the claimants before
the Coniinissioxierior_iWoi*1s:ntten Compensation had filed
a clairnpetiitioni in ‘Noi.”WCA:SR 6 /2007(F) under Section
22′ o”ii’:7.t:he,”Wo–iil<menVCoinpensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
i"relie.tf19ed:_it»o.: "a.ise~.Vf_2.3tct' for the sake of brevity) claiming
corripensation on account of the death of Rangaswamy,
husband of the 15? respondent, father of
..fe.spon'dents No.2 to 4 and son of the 5th respondent. It
contended in the claim petition that husband of the
a/
19¢ respondent viz: Rangaswarny was employed as a
labourer by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as
Employer') in the coconut garden belonging
appellant and in the course of his employmentj
asked to pluck coconuts and vyhile
duties, fell down from a coconut'».__tre;e 94.1
sustained injuries, on accourit of which heiisuc.cum3bed
to the same on the same day_.___ :Qn'account:of death
of the said Rangaswari1yii,,–hi-s_ and mother
filed the afore_said'"'Hi'ci§;imfli=–petitioni before the
Commissioner, foif"Workmei'i""Compensation claiming
compensation of with interest.
5. On regiisteringlthe petition, notice was issued to
*th’e__e.n_:1ployier__ and on service of notice, employer
filed written statement denying the
averments ‘made in the claim petition. It was contended
A employer that deceased, Rangaswamy, was his
neighbour and he was not working under him as a
CF,
coolie and he had permitted the said Rangaswamy to
pluck coconuts since he had sought for permi_ssi’on._to
pluck coconuts for his personal use and .
contended that deceased was Worlitipng
rubber plantations and at tirnes
plantations and said the
employer on 26.6.2093.’ seel§int_r;”per’rnission:to pluck ten
coconuts for his as such, the
employer him to pluck
coconuts belonging to the
employer] so, he fell down
from grievous injuries and later
on s-u.ccurn’bedw nialafide intention, the claimants
navé ,;s1e–ti the ””’ “claim petition contending that
A Rangasviainy. V V was an employee under the
erri«plo3fe’r/appellant and that there was no relationship
offernrgloyer” and “employee” between the deceased and
‘ ._tl’1e’*”appel1ant. All other contentions made in the claim
i V’ “petition were also denied. It was further contended that
ow
on humanitarian ground, he had paid a sum of
Rs.5,000/~ to the Wife of the deceased and ._ had
produced the receipt executed by the wife
deceased and her mother–in-law. It was also .
that deceased was not a workmarrrrrasydefined”tinder’_the
rovisioris ofWorkmen’s Corn en’satiori’Acit”.–_A’ 4
I3 pp y _ .
6. On the basis of the pleadirig.s, Clo1numi’ssioner has
framed issues for ‘l._cc:<jrisi'de'ration. The 13*
claimant/wife got her'self::"exa.miried.bias""PWI and got
marked aisjolexamined her brother
Subra:'manyaVVa"s,a.1so IASI of Sullia Police Station
as Pwaf-yvhg lllideidtiifiedllithe UDR — Ex.P3 and his
and"~–n:oV_ document was marked through the
'saidVwit1ie's.,ses__. The respondent got himself examined as
marked Exs.D1, receipt and D2,
attelridazice register and also examined an employee
Working under him by name Sri Krishna Maniyani as
RW2. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence placed
%/
by the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,62,766/–1i:with
interest at 12% p.a. payable by the employer
heirs of the deceased employee and it is "
and award, which is assailed in.'
the employer.
7. Heard the learned’ the parties,
8. Sri Arun Sham,g’le’ar:ned._”e,ou_nsel’r”appearing on
behalf of “Njataraj,iiheonitends that deceased,
Rangaswamy washrijotii’an”~emp1oyee and he was not a
workman defined’. tinder Section 2(1)(n} of the
itV”v’J.,C’;Aeti..,’and._there”‘was no relationship of “employer”
between the appellant and the
dece’a__sed> * léangaswamy. He would submit that
deceased’,-“Rangaswamy was working as taper in the
plantations and to the said effect, the wife of the
T ..i_4″‘cle’eeased has admitted in her cross–examination and in
W,
8
View of the same, the plea putforward by the employer
which is to the effect that deceased had gone to the
coconut garden of the appellant for the
plucking coconuts for his own use and notas ~
working under the appellant is tobe .acce;p.ted’.~:’_’;p.
9. Sri Arun Sham, learned
would also draw attention torithe the””e1’oss– ” V
examination of the of thedeceased to demonstrate
that deceased was residing quiarte1*s belonging to
the Government-typwhich him, is allotted to
the tapers. “of this admission made by her
that deceasedvvvyasilresiodienlg in the quarters allotted by
the .»Cloye1″nmen’t–,. the__only conclusion to be drawn is that
he”wa-sv”no.t”‘working under the appellant, but the
contentioiifjpuitforward by the appellant is in proximity
fuwithltruth and as such, he contends that it deserves to
A ‘*:lf”bela’c_cepted. He would also contend that insofar as the
burden that requires to be discharged by the employer
4%”
to demonstrate that deceased was not an employee, he
has produced attendance register to show as
many persons were working under the
admittedly the name of the deceased,__Rar1gasvi?a1n3′ doesvi ii”
not find place in the attendance regis_te*ri and
goes to show that RangasWam’y..V_was’ “notvwovrkir1g-Vwuiider ‘~ L’
the appellant. He would also–~–draW’–~the iattenticin of the
Court that evidence an employee
working underthe stated
that working under the
appellantiiianid. appellant to permit
him his own consumption and
there. wasiiinof 1’e1.atiovnship of employer and employee.
“iV”–v.q’phis.i:’eVid_ence uroiildiiprobablise the theory putforward
and in the absence of any other
evid._enc;_e’ placed by the employee, there was no
it”‘—V.”jL1sptific’ation for the Commissioner for Workmen
‘Co’1npensation to disbelieve the same and this
We
l0
contention having been disbelieved is contrary to the
facts and records.
10. Sri Arun Sham, learned counsel for
would also contend that UDR, Ex.P3
accepted and the author of *7-_2vho.i vbieeia, it
examined as PW3 has V in” his .
examination that it was prep’are–d byihirn instance
of his officials and he~..1fl1ad:not theispot and as
such the UDR report In support
of his subm_issir;o:r1s, lhez: the following
judgrn’ent’s:as ‘
1] .(Lakshrninarayana Shetty —
vs–‘Sh:3.ntha and another}
2) ‘V1986 Ai(:J..i:2i48 :[Rebati Gantayat –vs– Haguru Sethi
‘ (and”– after hirfl) Hararnoni and others
:l$;_- i.l:9§304iiii1:V:’LLJ page 220 (Kerala) (Kochu Velu –vs–
” Joseph;
4} i.i’99i8i 11 LLJ page 683 (Madras) (Commissioner,
A liovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti –vs–
” Tamilarasan 8:. 3 others]
” E3) (2006) 2 sec 450 (Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal
Saheb and others –~–vs– State of UP]
er’
ll
11. Per contra, Miss.Arnbika Bhat, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Chandranath
support the judgment and award
Commissioner for Workmen’s C:ompensatio:ri.a1:.d woruld.
contend that rnahazar andgothe Ul3R”‘would..”_re1lectv
how the death has occurredl,’i’t’xi.\.lI’i1ich go to
show that deceased’ coconuts in the
middle of the appellant and
if it was would not have
gone garden, which would
clearly discharging his duty as coolie
and he by the appellant and as
relationship of: employer and employee exists. She
‘;Wo.uld’v”contend that statement of the wife of the
“d.e’ceaseudj go to show that deceased was working
as taper and she had been allotted the house
A do/i’l’1;ere she was residing alongwith the deceased and
isolated statement made in the cross–examination
gt/,
12
cannot be relied upon to discredit the witness and as
such she would contend that claim of the legal hei-.r__s of
the deceased came to be accepted by Commi’ssio’if1.er,.
which is based on sound appreciation of evidence”c’a;nd:’ C
submits that judgment and awaifdiiiin’
call for interference and prays for__c’onfirmation
same and seeks for dismissal”‘0i”the appeal. Irifslupport
of her submissions, shehas _«rellliedl;up’0n the judgment of
the Apex Court in the Devi –vs-
Executive Enginegei’, tfdar’~Irrigation Division,
Jahana.ba§1,–. L}.ayar?e’po:r’te.d in C199′? ACJ 155.
12. Having heard Advocates appearing for
the parties, this.:vCourt of the considered View that
AV__afo1:lo-wiiig’sulastantial questions of law would arise for
sideration V C it
4l(i) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation was correct in holding that
there exists relationship of “employer” and
ar”
13
“employee” between the appellant and
deceased, Rangaswamy?
(ii) Whether the deceased Rangaswa1’¥}}’l
workman as defined under Section 2a(1;'(n–} ~
the w.c Act? A i ”
(iii) Whether the deceased. Rangaswianiyi,’-di.ed,in’
the course of Vemploymlent
arose during the 2 i
SUBSTANTIAL To 4:’
13. These points any finding
given on with other, both
are consiideration and for being
an swe_red.–
l4._. _lt _the”,’-co’nte’ntion of the learned counsel
‘i V’ . ap:pearinge– for theiiappellant/employer that deceased was
under the appellant and he had
approachefdhim as a neighbour to accommodate him to
..plucl<"»c:oconuts in the coconut garden belonging to the
i "',_lap'p'ellant for his personal use and on being permitted to
" '-"pluck the coconuts, he is said to have fallen down and
di/
15
whether the contract of employment was made
before or after the passing of this Act and whether
such contract is expressed or implied, oral orin
writing; but does not include any person working,’
in the capacity of a member of {the Armed
of the Union] and any reference to a workm;a11«vvh.o ~
has been injured shall, where the worlirnanypii-s”l . ‘
dead, include a reference to his depenclantsfor”–any
of them. a =
(2) The exercise and
powers and duties of a lo€.al authority :o’r}ovf,_,_an,\,%’
department [acting on behalfiof the..GoV_”e;rn’rnent]
shall, for the purposes offlthis Act,._,unless a
contrary intention appears,””oe”deemed to be the
trade or business of —such ‘aut_hori.ty. or department.
[(3) ‘=il’he,’*-Central£fj’Go’ve’iinme’nt or the State
Government,” by nctificaticfkin the Official Gazette,
after’l’givi11.g:iinot three months’ notice of
its intention ‘s.o=- to diogrnay, by a like notification,
add to. Schedule A:_’I~l_ any*cl~ass of persons employed
in any”woccupation= vghich it is satisfied is a
hazarous”occupation,and the provisions of this
Actshall there.1r1pon.apply, in case of a notification
‘ by-. th’e<C'entra1 Government, within the territories
_ » :to_,which'«.,the Act extends, or, in the case of a
'notl1fic:ationV"t-by the State Government, within the
'-State, tosuch classes of persons:
itpaoaatea that in making addition, the Central
Governinent or the State Government, as the case
ff be, may direct that the provisions of this Act
shall apply to such classes of persons in respect of
'specified injuries only]" 4/
16
15. The presence of the deceased, Rangaswarny in the
coconut grove of the appellant is not in dispute?-:i’~.<<l_:'I71f1e
falling of the deceased from coconut tree _
the coconuts is also not in dispute as als"o"t'l'i'e.d'eath of "'
Rangaswarny, which occurred ion1'ac~cou1a_t"'olf injuifies
sustained after having
tree while plucking The reirolves as
to whether the decealsedwas, coolie under
the appellant.5?:-.not;éll about 12.00
p.m., the is said to have fallen
land:"'i'rrilmediately on his falling
downihe was hospital in a Maruthi van
"5
belon.ginglt"o._:the"appellant and on being admitted he is
said toihave expifedi. On the same day at about 14.15
a police complaint has been lodged by
apvp'clVlant whereunder it is stated that appellant is
..a,n_. agriculturist by profession and on that day, deceased
l°.iRa1ilgaswamy was engaged in the job of plucking the
l V' "coconuts in his land and during the course of plucking
%"
the coconuts, he fell downqrorn coconut tree at 12.00
p.rr1. and suffered injuries and he was shifted to the
Government hospital at Sullia. The said complairithas
been marked as Ex.P1 and signature of
has been marked as E:-<.Pl(a). not'?
dispute that it is not his signatiJ,re;.
objections statement filed,-.__ there 'is no'grefere:j:nce
regarding filing of complaintiiibyi him the police
authorities. The said?"ob3l.ect;ioin's_'g'statement filed on
24.9.2004 is silent reg'ardliV_to'"'.floidging of the
complainti before police authorities. If
it was the 'caseoi that deceased was not
an employee 1,in'd.er theliappellant and if it was the case
~' V.,..'0f{ appellant the deceased was a neighbourer
am his coconut garden for the purpose of
pluckingcpoiconuts only for his own consumption, the
factiwould have been stated in his complaint at the
first-A'instance. Having not stated so, the theory now
pntforward by the appellant that deceased Rangaswarny
a/
18
was not an employee of the appellant and he was not
working as a coolie, would not inspire c0nfiden_ceV_:it_he
Court to accept such submission.
16. Even otherwise it is to
appellant has been improving his_c::-.se stagevi’by ‘$t.age”;
and step by step. At the the
appellant did not deceased
having Visited._his By further
improving. filed’ he
statedv_that’~ “some other rubber
also states in his written
statemefitg Rangaswamy was working
in»*5f’soiitne oth–erv_ arecanut plantations” and now a
‘ ;conVte–n’ti~o’n_Ais_ raised in this appeal contending that
ideceasedbFiangaswamy was a taper in the rubber
plantations belonging to the Forest Department. This
will i.clie”a_rly goes to show as to how the appellant ~ employer
thin order to avoid and evade his liability of paying
W,
19
compensation is attempting to improve his case stage by
stage and step by step. In View of the
contention of the learned counsel for the
there was no relationship of emp_loye:'””
between the deceased
cannot be acceded to.
17. Be that as it EX.P3 do
not disclose these ‘thiel’employer in the
report. Even
the behalf of the appellant
as DW2 has not stated
about having come to the
V gard’-env______be1onging to the appellant for the
:’of’v._plucking the coconuts for his personal
” Though Sri Arun Sham would rely upon
the Lnltdgrnent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
bldladha Mohan Singh referred to supra by drawing
attention to paragraphs 14 and 15, this Court of the
We
20
considered View that principles enunciated therein
would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case, but in favour of the claimants inasmuch astheir
lordship have interpreted Section 149 of IPC
a conclusion that in the absence of any.V\__Nit=ne’sses n’o–ti_ V’
being reflected in the UDR report ‘itseii
a ground to discard the testimony’—-of”the wimessi,
does not find place in reVp~o_rt’_s View of
proposition of law do.i}irn_tyh’e..yApeisV<"l Court, the
contention of the learniedy ibr._i.'–appel1ant that
witnesVse's,"ex5fho t_he"'statements in the UDR
reportifihavei version and as such UDR
report caiiriot 'oes looked into by this Court cannot be
'i V. accepted and aclcvordingly it is hereby rejected. The co-
"ha.sb}~given a statement that at the time of
pA1u_cki_ng coconuts in discharge of his duty as coolie,
the deceased Rangaswamy fell down from the coconut
i and sustained injuries and succumbed to the said
" -"injuries. The said statement made in the UDR report
av
21
can be considered and examined in the limited scope to
ascertain apparent cause of death and~.L~the
circumstances surrounding it and nothing__
Hence, I am of the consideredryiew that” ‘~.¢f
Radha Mohan’s case relied upon by the learn:ed_:Vco’L1nsel
for appellant is to be held_v:appliciabl_e~in’iv:fa¥iour.. theiii
respondents.
18. Insofar as… — Ex.D2
produced Commissioner for
Workmgfi that all the names
of «.;,%;§:i7l.¢cted in the attendance register
and the name of the deceased
to be held that said Rangaswarny was
‘ rpnot wVo’r.kingv in agricultural operations of the appellant,
“1’s”t’o be-uejxarriined with circumspection since appellant
has stated about maintaining of attendance register
ipeiitljier in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional
lgpolice or in his objections statement filed on 24.9.2004
as/’
22
since the appellant has not stated about maintaining of
attendance register either in the complaint lodg_ed_yb_efore
the jurisdictional police or in his objectionéi
filed on 24.9.2004 said register.cann*ot”‘b.e’_’:p
Those persons whose name is in Ex;’D2 petcetoiso
not exaniined. Said registeprwips not.__counvter*._;s’i~gned by,’
any statutory authorities,,.t-‘Th.’e’- lautheriticvityyiof Ex.D2
itself is in doubt.’ ll such attendant
circumstancezg, would rely upon Ex.D2
attendance :.e’gilste1′., — ,
19. u ‘ aspect, which requires to be
noticed,”is”that ,eooe1.ieotl has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/–
to’-i:.he__llV.rife aIid.th_e,:nother of the deceased, for which he
‘ ~obtairi’ed receipt. It is the contention of the
l’ einployeif on humanitarian ground, he has paid the
said varnount to the wife and the mother of the deceased.
author of Ex.D1 — receipt is not examined. The said
receipt, when perused, wouid reflect that it is factually
23
not so. In the said EXD1 penultimate sentence reads
as under:
“cam ea aiam made oeeobefg aomcszgsed
we 5JU”§@C;1JcDOCi3 as aidraoé k%€L?O\i):U&rn’-\)L):’$Ql°fi.” l’ l’
(we state that there will no further ‘”
amount payable to us)
If it was the case of the appellant that__decease’d”Wasj not ll
an employee Working..under~ap’pellant, lthverevvlwas no
necessity or requirement”toe..ir1::se1fteev.the° above referred
sentence, whvich’ v-reflelctsl_:t.hat”*~in_anticipation of any
probablet”‘e1n.;jr;;n that “legal of the deceased may
lodge avgainstl the said sentence has been
incorporated. “In_’yiew of the some also, the contention
«._of 8«iP:13e1lant’slco’unse1 that there was no relationship
“employee” cannot be accepted.
~V 20. .. ””vEr1s’o.lfar as the judgments relied upon by the
ll”l::t.1e’arnedllllCounsel for the appellant, in the case of
‘ Liflcshminarayana Shetty’s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that in the said case there was no
$/,
24
relationship of employer and employee, for the reasons
mentioned therein and on admitted facts it was found
that deceased was carrying on the painting
behalf of the painting contractor in the house
to the appellant (Lakshminarayana V’
such, it was held that there :9..vas_’lnlo
employer and employee the»
appellant therein. In» the ease, itllisvnotadmitted
by the legal heirs of ‘theifdelceasedl»Rangaswamy that
there was no employer e-mp’l_joyfe’elrelationship.
21. asathel’Rebafi”‘Gdntayat’s1 case referred
to sup’1’«al, ‘itlhasthat onus is on the claimant
to prove cléeeased was a workman, is of
persuasiVe..ppvalueflmas also the judgment in the Case of
referred to supra.
22; .. lie; fiebati Gantayat’s case, it has been held at
A iiplar=agraph 4 of the judgment to the following effect:
4″
‘ l986 ACJ 248
25
“-4. ………. ..tt is not possible to enumerate the
nature of employment exhaustively in 0:
growing society where the scope and nature”–.9
of employment is every expanding ……….. .._,v’»’.
On facts it has been held that there was
of employer and employee. In__the in_stan’t:’_’;cas’ey;_’_xth-e ll
documents at Exhibits P1, P3, R121.’ would
theory put forward by the’a_pp,ellant that no
employer and employee relati-o.n’ship..ycannotvvbeaccepted
for the reasons ablo’\;é., vyijenpce, the said
judgments relied “counsel for the
appellant and circumstances
of the ease.’
23. A. -Sri counsel appearing for the
l has vehemently argued that in View of the
by the wife of the deceased that
Ran’gas’fv’am.y iwas residing in the quarters allotted to the
Dtapcers itself is sufficient to hold that deceased was not
“employee under the claimant. But, when the entire
Web
26
evidence is examined, it would reveal the following
facts:–
a) the wife of the deceased is an uned,i.iCa,t:eVdhs:”‘ V’
and illiterate lady. _ _ _ V _V
b) at one breath, she has:=,kstatelcnI} Al
quarters belonging to Ran-gaswarn§’r«”.lothelrs
were residing. V 3 V
In the later portion of. the 3eroAs’s_–examin’ati0nA,.E she has
stated that, at the tirnue he was
not carrying Qflttlfle tapping. At the
same time; as RW–1 in
his ‘ it ‘himself admitted that
Rangas-warny and was working in the
plantation”be’longing_» others in his own words. It
‘~ .Are2{C_1\S as followszl “”” ” ‘V
ogamaosae eemeomeaacgm
he:-efiti) wee eggs éraetscjg ea,-1 mmgggm.
” gaégfi eaadtiu we o5o’aa3)de 6&6 menace ai3a©E%c3
e9’€%cii>e; éegaéyadsg am a$5ad3eDc;m”. 4/
27
24. If it were to be so, the appellant could have
examined any of his neighbours to demonstrate and
establish the contention raised in the examir1atio”n;in–
chief to the effect that the deceased
under the appellant, but was working.elsewhere,_
25. In the absence of any evidence
placed by the employer–aplp’ella_nt has -tAo:”be*-iheldlljthatlVV
the deceased was wor.king””un_del1*n.the lappelllant and
when it is so acceptedgl legislation of
Workmen’s C}o*rn._pjensation.:..Ac’t.ie’n[ac:t’ed’ for the welfare of
the employee in favour of Whom the said
legislationihas be_en..venai’cted. In view of the same, the
que’stio1is of law 1 to 4 formulated
l’*V.y’l1VereinaboVé._ld–eserves to be answered against the
appellant in favour of the respondent.
3.26. ” In View of the discussions made hereinabove,
u”li.tl1iys:lf.C0urt is of the considered View that judgment and
passed by the Workmen’s Compensation
4/
28
Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmities
either on facts or on law and the same deserves to be
confirmed. Accordingly, the following order is passedgf
bl
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. 9
Judgment and award
Officer and Commissioner fo_r77?W’orkIi}1en’s’*a
WCA it
Compensation, Mangalore’ r in,
No.6/200′? (NF)
.t’d’at.i¢’diVV’22.5.2OO7 hereby
confirmed} ‘ ‘-
Registry igmdiirected»V.ptoiii’trai’is’;r1it the amount
i_’th:e”-K”–appellant to the
jur:sdictior1al_pV ‘i¥_V\«’o4rlx’_rr1en’–s Compensation
Commissioner »i for ..1§eing disbursed in
accordance judgment and award
byiit’he_CoAmmissioner for WCA dated
22.5.2007.
ye)
i
._-No g’raer’ aspjto costs.
draw the award accordingly.
Sd/5
Tudgwé