Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1910/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1910 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7476 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 1910 of 2010
=========================================================
VIMLACHAL
PRINT & PACK PVT LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
PRABODHBHAI
AALJIBHAI JADAV - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR YOGEN N PANDYA for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 12/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned Advocate Mr. D.R.Dave for the appellant Vimlachal Print &
Pack Pvt. Ltd. and learned Advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the
opponent – original claimant.
2. The
appellant is before this Court being aggrieved by a judgment and
award dated 01.07.2009 passed by the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner, Ahmedabad under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The
Workmen Compensation Commissioner is pleased to award an amount of
Rs. 69,265/- with 9% interest from the date of application till the
realization. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner was pleased to
order that the amount be paid within 45 days.
3. The
learned Advocate Mr. Dave states that the principal amount is already
deposited. However, the interest amount is yet to be deposited.
Appellant is directed to deposit the interest amount also by 1st
September 2010, failing which the interest rate will be 12%, not by
way of a penalty, but as a measure to curb the utilization of that
amount by the appellants.
4. Learned
Advocate vehemently submitted that the day which is set out as that
of the accident was staggering holiday and therefore the entire case
of the claimant is required to be dismissed. This very contention was
taken before the Commissioner and Commissioner has dealt with that
contention while deciding issue No.2. The Tribunal has recorded at
one place that according to the applicant the accident had taken
place on 28.07.2001 and the Tribunal has then recorded that, with
regard to the date also there is no dispute between the
parties.(emphasis supplied).
4.1. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that this is an inadvertent
recording of the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing
for the appellant. He submitted that what was admitted before the
Workmen Compensation Commissioner was that, accident did take place
on 28.07.2001 but not in the factory. It had taken place at home and
to convey that there is no dispute about accident having taken place
at the residence of claimant, the aforesaid finding is recorded. The
learned Advocate could not convince this Court any further because
what follows is important. Assuming for the sake of arguments that on
28.07.2001, as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant,
there was staggering holiday about which the Commissioner has
recorded that no documentary evidence is produced by the appellant
before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The Commissioner has
recorded that after the claimant having discharged his duties in
third shift on 27.07.2001, he was asked to stay back for overtime and
it is during that time the accident had taken place.
5. Be
that as it may, the question remains as to whether this Court will
like to interfere with the order passed by the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner, Ahmedabad in which a categorical finding about the
incident is recorded and the liability of the appellant to pay the
same is fixed. Having found no substance in the First Appeal, the
same is dismissed.
6. Now,
that the First Appeal is dismissed, the claimant is entitled to move
the Workmen Compensation Commissioner by filing an appropriate
application for the disbursement of the amount already deposited and
which may be deposited hereafter.
Order
in C.A. 7476 of 2010
As
the First Appeal is dismissed, no orders in Civil Application.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
jani
Top