Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3138/1996 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3138 of 1996
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
JAYABEN
JIVRAJBHAI & 6 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
TRUSHA PATEL AGP for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
MS SUDHA R GANGWAR for Defendant(s) : 1 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 28/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.03.1992,
passed by the learned Civil Judge ((SD) Amreli in Workmen’s
Compensation Application no. 23 of 1986 whereby, the respondents were
directed to recover an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation,
along with the interest @ 6% after one month from the date of the
incident and has also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. Respondents
nos. 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased-Jivrajbhai Hansrajbhai.
The deceased was working as a Watchman in the District and Sessions
Court, Amreli. While discharging his duty, on 14.10.1981, the
deceased was unfortunately murdered. The legal heirs of the deceased
therefore, preferred an application being Workmen’s Compensation
Application No. 23 of 1986 before the Court of learned Civil Judge
(SD) Amreli.
2.2. The
learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the
evidence on record, allowed the application and granted compensation
to the tune of Rs.21,000 with running interest @ 6% after one month
from the date of incident. Hence, this appeal.
3.0. Heard
the learned counsel for the parties. Having perused the record of the
case, it is clear that the deceased was working as a Watchman and
that while discharging his duties, he was murdered. Hence, being a
Government servant on the regular establishment and also the fact
that the deceased is covered under the definition of ‘Workman’, the
impugned order is just and proper. Considering the fact that the
deceased had died during the course of employment, the State ought
not to have preferred this appeal. Looking to the smallness of the
amount involved, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
4.0. In
view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that
this appeal is entertained since the amount involved is very small
and, therefore, the same shall not be treated as precedent in any
other proceedings.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top