. —w–“‘ ,~’».’ «Mr uI=\I=v.I’v|lr’IqI-I1 snu–as suwvlviir tutu l\l”‘Il\lIFllFll\r’ Ill\7l’I \.o\J\J’l\l \Jl” l\l”\l\I’II’|lP’|!\I’\ TIEKDT’ ‘-JIJLJKI U!’
:52 THE HIE?!’ comm as xaazrrarca M’ snmsauczafi’–.._”T~-V.
::.n.<.r':sa was THE 01"' my my amoaxa 2-
BE?QRE
THE HGWBLE l|!¥21.JUS'3"ICE K N
M. y. A. 190.3612' :2: 2oTce.§ '*:wc: "
BETWEEN 2
I THE REGIEHAL 1'~!M%ER _L_s4.’11s’s§::’2′.s’___:s1’z.~.z§._v} T€£Q_R1=’_DBAT.I’£3N
arm’ Z,….'{s3.SEj1v?;¥&N’3*E’IP{3R ._
Em:-u::~;a;og,g ~::;,; mrpnnmrrs
my aria mum, ms 3
A53 :’
1 figmaafgsa £21 vzmclwnppzr.
” ._ AGED “‘An::.u’r._’3o was
Fgfij we *2::i.3,” aasmnmm
at-::R::3_s’fs,-. «MAL ma:-mafia
, nAs;mx;_-Ema: Pas?
.A Bmsmoafi
2:. ‘3za.,~’>§* AYE PAFER @ amm ma
jam 33.7, mum camm;
£EMFfl§§I READ
samsaaoas
av zrrfi nmxcmx nssrwmzws
f§B’Y firi: SEEBP: REC? 5 CG FCIR C/TREND SR1 H S
swam subznm, Am’:-’01:: R2:
@
_ —- — — — — –.. —–…. —. … H’. up ‘u.—‘.’.–‘ . ggggg . \_.\;’;|\g \I”‘ ‘\p'[“”u’I’.”\l.’
MFA EILEG uxs 39:11 as w.c. ACT Asking? ?fi3
sunsmsmv awn GREEK DRTEB:2§.12.2005 Eg$$$fi” in v”‘
?EBf§FCfCR~18£l9§9, an THE Exp: oF.~?EEj;gR3oua_u”‘u
GFFICER AND CUMMISSIDMER’ ?sH_<f'ioRx3Efi_
canpzxsarzca, sue nIvIsIoN–z, éaN¢AL¢a$; Amn3n:$G *
cmnysmsxwznu 35 as. 3§,8§EI4,fiITHwSiHPLE I§?EREST
AT 12% F.R. FREE 27.2.9§".%ILL Vfi3$ésiT:; Ann
nzascvzma THE a£ssLL5xTs;HEfiEIfix¢e néfiesif THE
mm. g.V &Y'
THIS MI3qEL@#s30@Sflr§n5f°fi3gfiAu is COMING on
F92.'HEAa1a§..?31$ ;nA?,_3r3E; $auHTw"nELIv&aEn THE
Fmnaawzas: 1 ' "" "= 'v* "'
V &§h§§:mr
rhia #§p§a;7 gfidé$ Sactian 30(1) of the
v§*%ra.::xfIti&:2»=.:i:;5»-.i':c:aE'i;;yansaea{i$'ii;§§§ii Act (for short 'the Act')
is'a;ia§t§&";g§inst tha arder dated 29~12-2005
gags-mgi the Cmmniaaicnez: of Workman
.C'm}P&n$ ajfia-:1, Sub-Bivi 3.1'. on-I, Bangalore 1 for
*Cmmiasi<}ne:'} in case No.WCA.r'NFCI{CR-
V i§:ia§§ allawing the applicaticn filed by
Raspamnftient Nc;~.1. herein and directing the
%~/
.. –.-.–.—-v V. rnrIl\l'11It1I\!'I -||\.I|I u\Iun\a \.ll nnnruninivn !"H\9Fl LLIUKI K}? KAKNAIAKA
appeliants ta pay the compen5ation«L%§fi
Es.3§£892f* with aimyle interest at l2%§fi;é[uf*u'
2. Eespfindent No.1 hefibinfvifiiafli Ffb§7f
apglicatian befare the’ Camis3icn@ri gaakifig
campansatian mf Es.2,15,GQQfr_fpr fhe_injhria3
aaid to have been sdsfiaifiad bf §ifi;_
3. Thfi c§5$gQfLthéi§§Qlimén£:ifi brief is as
under: …… _
Th&t~he.ififa§i§w§1myeé working as Mazdoo:
in the ‘,ga§§#nxi”§fi;4 Central Warehousing
‘_C¢xpm$§fii9n, ifiahfignthpur Unit Ho.1, Bangalore
iH§f§r»_shfi:t{i*¢orp¢2ati¢n’} and. he has been
wéxtirmiififigtei since 1§Bfi continuausly. His
i%:v–wazk%”¢gfi.i%hat of laading and unlaading,
iiii§#£ki§g wand xafipacring, stacking of gaods,
ai£_e1é£iifi§ and such ethgr incidental waxks
fiigéixustea ta him by tbs Hanager at the
Cmryatatien. In all there are 56 emplayeea
{Kazdaaxs} marking at Unitwl cf Centxal
&
I wuniotwaunr urn |\r’\I\II.l”‘IIl”‘II\l-I IlI\IIl \u\lIJ!\l Iull I\FIl\I’l1’\lI”|I\l”\ l”II\’l1 VMJUKI U!’
aaxspaxzsatian for exmleyment injuries su£fi§3:.éd_
by him: e:iuz::iI1§ the discharge of hia-3V. .§iii£i’a.§s§*’..___ .
with than fiarparat iczn.
“firm application w’.i{$”‘–~._cofiAf:é§t.ed’ itiy-..,,¢VVr5i1a:%
ayp 93. Ian: –C orperati qr; a ‘h ‘ «.
that there is ma enrplayer and
€L’E§l¢:g”‘v89 hat?-r}a–e;1 :t:’hé and that
applicant; :_ is not
liable: t:§;::=:. The parties
led evifiyanse ‘ fiznmniasioner. The:
=’.’fam’:@sianei:::__ by under appeal held
__t.1”.:a.t t}igfa§:e’~ exié1:*.s:V;;§3..atinahi;: of employer and
‘ICU
é-z:p@1§;:isj,?a;Vre»’l1e«1§:t%::.gan the Carpnrati-an and the
V apfi§1i,V£:an§;’ éT’.’j t}s;é§:e:Ecxe, the Coxpoxzation is
3.’ia1é:ié t.g{“V.pé’_i}s’ the compensaticn. Having regard
nu-urn 1:-nun-1:1:-1 a nu
xiiha Nnature caf permanent disablamant
“~.__s€:.ffi3.3#aéti by the apylicant, the Cozzmissionez
nu nu-ururuuu wag-u
‘trfifirfizated the cotwansatian at R3.35,B92/- and
dimcted the Ciarpezation to pay the said
-:1:-u.-. -urn cw -uuu tn 1′: -u
fit/’
— W- — -…–..-..,–……_ ..-._–. V._A_« . .-..-.”-………….. .. …u……n.,….. ….-……….m..u.m-m”n- niwrl \..vu’Iu ur–mum-A:AxA HIGHCOUR’
ammznt ta-gather with interest at the rate
12% :;.:.a..
4. Being aggrieved by ‘aha $»a,:i.t ‘V l.é§?f§iVfV:”é?£ridence,
thamrefarzrm, tit-.a._ ” ta be
aet aside.
amfiri’-.::§3V____._q:f£ nzzatica sf this appeal,
claimant appeared thrasugh his
3. éagfizozd ¢:§i.:,:as;’%’iV .
AA ha?-yer heard both sides.
Brazing the crmxrse sf argument, learned
cmuzsaal fur the ze,- that cannot rczcsnatitute
at law much 3.953 the suhsta_.r:_ti_al Via:
iatw. 3%: is his ccntentimn ‘r;h.;at1 rzc>° a?n;bis1:’é’:.z;i::i;L;a¢1:’T1.’.:
aguastiassn sf law is invc»li§e:i3u…V’in”Atfl::§:3
tharaicsra, the wpag; ii?$3.T1§;:;i’:.{Y!&.jf’I13$;é1iIi’:i!%I§2;r}7g£#¥i§. Hes
aaxughtt tar: glaae sf
this mrurt infijzha BEANAGER,
!sF;£.”W fi$%!£”:a§«G%EEfV sagso
m:»rz:z.;*:;r:;%___ .%§’.’§§{:;»r§€sTRArI¢;¢ wms,
= 4′ “‘v,.f’.«::” spar. 5. RASER my
mmas ré;:=4.;;.;5:~::a§ii.’i§;@§§_.993{3; mar 395 and the
.~..cfie<:3Lv$§:',onLA'mf 't:Eia.Q_;;_fiasa High Court in the caae
'*.g:fssis%s..,_'£*'2*$=:sz.*.;_ A?£!T.Fi'fl'r.F£Ii"?:' cs? zzamra 57.5., V/s
raepsszzteci in 198? 3.".r.F1fl.I. EL'. $86.
AA light sf tha abava dacisicens, What
' «.is '§zfa:quired ta be noticed is as ':0 whether
finding of the Cexmissiranar regarding
szwizzzéyer and exrrplcryee relaticsnahip involves
substantial question of law as: net, as the
/I
g/
-a ‘~1|I1r1|ll nu-1 – -‘ans: usruaul ma: I\l’I.l\l’Ir”Ill”ll\l’I lH\.?l! \.u\J\Jl\l V-J!’ I\aP’|ICIVP’Kil”\I’\fi\ Hlflyfi
‘E3
acceptance to shaw that the claimant
erwluyee of Curporation, the
reecozsziaassi an affixraativa
::aga.r2:§.. Therefore, the :’$&a.:i;,’:_.’.’iT : i5’°€.A
perverse. illegal and a§ixpf:c:;té,@i
lagai evidaance. In __this vj_.éé2~r__ :3: t2i’e’«xf:§;tV1:f:9r, I
hold that the “.L3.’._rVjg1,.i*§.:zI’f..’€f§$6. Vfiubatantial
qtlastian 2:-f lam. V ‘ V ‘
:12. it that at the
irmt.ancé’r. czf we ” Efnicssn, a reference
has hfleI’t “§~.!!.d1B “V. Central Gc-verrnraant
arm: the said matter is
_ the Tribunal. It is alas the
claimant that in the aaid
V’;:*Vajx:fe:.r #;:;r;«:.§”V,,.,éV. hazva scmght fax: xregularismtion
tiugiyf employraentt. Fran this it is
clear that the clairu-ant :13 not as.
«an: pemment employee ca-f than
uC a::x£’;:-<:=za€:i.£2I1 and be along with ether ztmrabera of
'aha finish is fighting for his regularisation.
&
… -u -a nu uu-1 – II\aI I \.a\.r\Ja\: VII I\rlI\I'CP'\lP\l\l'\ flllirl LKJUKI U!'
15
tax at-‘ow that he was ernplcryed
Cwzpmzaticn, either as zcegul-ax: emplcsyfeé
a ataaual labourer. The Cor;a¢e.*:at:ion”.§¢ii,fi:i’::,3;V”t’.’1;ga- AV
crssnzzae cxf enquiry bafcre thé’1«’C¢§m*t:ia:si_é:iner«.
gzmoduc-ad the attendanca acVqfi{ui.§itar;ha
register, estc., wharei;;_… j;h§’…._.n#fné– _o;fE the
appli cant doea of the
amplayaes tkzfi * The
flsmmniaaistsngts: the murder
undsr to the 9135.1
evi6;ent;; e placmd by the
claimant IfVi£’.§
aacuments fiilad by the
H-:1-twee not throw any light
his aznplaynlant with R1 and
x ‘$22, but same at the documents
§ @§veala that the gaetitioner baa met
with an accident and taken treatzrwnt
in this hospitala. The Ex. }?1-8 and
W.-Er are the document, which xmvaals
«&/
..,.,….. u—u:–uv.r-1 an II\3’l : \..\.llJ!\l lull’ RHNIYHFHNA HIGH
15
that the petitianer and otheif
membeza have filed an a;3plica§:’§.on:AT:”‘: “‘–~ ‘ ‘
befare the C31? .:”fC’.J.”.”
regal arization.
Hcrwwrar, in th,a___ . next 3m ::ag.tap1é:;,
the
(3e;:nzm.1.’3ai«aner has cc$tu;e= ts-._7f ‘4Shé’$f’J$2.VC.1.3J.8i<3*I'2 am
under:
“Thare,fnr4§’~V$:hé’1i:;,;:aaf:_ta.: ‘divsczis aed
above and ‘§n” zileading ;
at parties gag do¢uméfit$’availabla,
thrage wgaéz. gfierzxue z:’ée’l=a3_;i,c:»n aof eruyloyer
a:r§§j1–¢ya_;s5’~% §§2va;:’:a t::e_a-an the pei::I.t:i::m.-ax:
E do not kmarw from
fig@;:_ y§xi$g§ : But the facts
reveals that that
was working on the day of
Kga;§§fi§fit 1.9. 2?-1-1999 and met with
fifzcident when 3, heavy bundle was
35:23.1 hangad ever the right hand afi
«@
… ..1.,…., ……m. ur Mmmnm mun COURT or KARNATAKA HEGH coug.
‘£3
made: appeal da not indicate that the
cf the fjotnzniaaicaner about the
er’-‘@lz>§”‘aa zzelaticzxnship is
and acceytable evidence. _
finding mf the A1.:”ha_.t’
36221216 relaticmship a.J:§d’~aanz;;loyee
between the claimafit is net
basefi an anyf evidence.
Thezefisre, perverse and
illggalvg “”” :1 . . ., ;
15. Pa.z:uaf}5u1_ .015 ._ vthé’«…\~~’Lracords and the order
.- v.u_z:deV_1*’ a£1»:t’e« …___f§I.=.&;$a ed by the C oxrmi 53 ions 1:
7’f§fiI1:1.f.’.f§.-, ai_§~a:’«.,.&éc’:1¢w that there is absolutely no
dm¢r.:mr:entarfi%’;_ f-fifidence prociuced by the claimant
‘ ‘ta aé’t;a31:::i,,_:i. s 11 that he is an employee «sf the
I £5115-.fipTTz::ir:5ati an.
5:: the nth-ar hand, the 3.-aarnsd ccmnsel
far the claimant drew my attention to an
:.1nma:c3:ad dsrzument, which :13 an agreement
4%
—-w..– an I\1″II\Il(“Ill”‘II\l”I :u\7I’l \.«\JU’l\l Null’ l\I’\KI’I’\Il-\I\l’\ HIGH
Caumisaianer regarding amplcyer -amy1¢féé
relatianahip is highly’ pervezae andf7ia: fi¢t %
basefi an any legal avidenceyw-I%at§f§fiéf the’
said finding is liable ta fie éeé és;a§,f?§#aj
tha absence cf any efii§egca “tp’ p§¢$§,,tfie
emplayar-empiayea ra;atigné§ip;3th§fiapyeiiants
cannat be held liabié fin pg? %§@§g5ation. In
View af th@_tm§aw§ fi%d§u§3fi$n; S 399 no
substance 3iQ %fi§”_g%§ugét@:q§W the learned
swanai»fi9§fifh$fiR£3§fififi#h$wciaimant to ramand
tha m$tt$§ §§ {fin§fifi§egfiiuaianer for fxeah
gfiquiry’ . .. _
: *ޤ;R I; Tviaw at the abave, the gppaal
da$a£fe$’§§ fié allmwed by setting aside the
$g_4’Qrde: ¢f fiha Ccmmissiener. The application
‘» ‘§iié&.befcx@ tha Camissianar for aampansation
*._V:a’;:éb1e to he diamiaaed.
fi¢¢ordingly, thg appeal ia allowed.
Qtdex flated 29.12.2005 passad by the
‘@
uvv-ur ‘urn u\r’Ir\IIr\lrll\l’l II”n\Jr1 \.’IJUI\I Lil’ RHKIVHIHKH PTIUH COURT
2.1
rsamisamnex in ‘iv:c.:u’H3=c!c1e.—13;1999 that . ‘t.3:gfg.:’e_
exists relatisnahip mf amg:-layer and *
betwe I’-5′-III the appellant and V
sat asitie . The applicatiltran
applicant hefmta _ C01Af’I!L,’E_’.S5_§Vi.E3}{1Gu’:$V”‘ is
diam}. saga.
‘me azacmnt in ias;..,v.’¢+»a4ifs:i§;~1:ec1 to be
zaturned to ?:hé’j:;j,L;£91ppé_ll€a1’i§:. ‘
Sd/-
Judge