c-f- ,.L (t? Ffl0 Misc. ADpealNo. ...t.u../. 2009 SAMRiDHDI KHANIJ AND AGRO PRIVATE ^ /(Owner). ^7 LIMITED(No. U13201 CT 2003'PTC 15670) @,^.(^ Through: - Director, \' ^.y''..-' Shri Vaibhav Dhody, Aged about 25 years, ^ ^- ^ s/o shri RaJesh Dhody, 'y^ .-\ o^' R/o 4, Malviya Nagar, •y.n/" .••''.A^S^-' £>-' >.'»'• ^" Versus ^.&^' ^" Respondents :- 1.-. Ajoo Ram Sahoo Aged about 66 years, S/o Dooklha Ram Sahoo R/o Village: - Deori, Police Station: - Dhamdha District: - Durg (C.G.) _y Aged about 66 years, S/o Raghunandan Giri, Distt. Durg (C.G.) rs r*i ^rf K5.- t S~£zo^-. <yo •vffLnuff-r f •?»!.a HIGH CGIIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. i'C» N0. 10S1 OF 2003 APPELLANT/' Saiui-idlidi Kliairij Aiid Agi-o PrivRte lAmited Versus Ajoo Ram Salioo and another. APPEAL U3SDBR oECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 Sineie Bench: Hon ole Shri G. Minhaiuddin, <J. Present; Shri. V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the appeUa-nt. None for respondents. ORAL ORDBR (Psssed on 12th day ofJuly; 2011} Tius appeal- has been filed LUider Seetioii 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act, 1923^ against tlie mipugned awai'u dated 22-06-2009 passed by the CoHimissioner for Workmens Coiupensatiou, Labour Court, Dm'g (for short the Comuiissioner') ui Case No-145/W.C. Act. Fatal/2004, so far as fhe Uability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appeUant. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as projected uy ftie claimant ai'e that fhe deceased Ranieshwar Saliu was fhe son of Claimant/respondent No. 1 and was ail eniployee under fuc appeUaiit/non-applicant No.2. On 31-12-2003 deceased Rameshwar Sahu wliile workuig in flie Farm House, he died due to electiocuUon on tbe spot. ;:^.. 3. The claiinant beirig legal heir of fiie deceased had filed a claim petition uiider- Section 10 of the Workmen's Coiapensatlon Act, 1923 (for short the Act, 1923'} clalaiing compensation of Rs.1,80,237/- for the deafh of his son Raineshwai' Sahu. 4. Learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation ai'ter giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, has awai'ded a sum of Rs.1,56,206/- and 50% of the amount has been iiiiposed upon non-applicant No.2 by way of penalty under the Workruen's Compensation Act. The amount awarded by the Conuiiissioner was du'ected to be paid by fhe appellant/non-applicant No.2 witiiki a period of one iiionfu from the date of tlie oruer, falluig which 9% suiiple interest per aruium to be paid by tlie appeUant froin the date of appllcation till its payment. 5. Even after revisuig of uie Ust, when the case is called out .-•! .-.-.^ t-.^.l-.^'i^ --.^ -f-T--_ „_-_-^_-_>-^i^.—i-- -t_-_-.^~ twice, no one appeaiea on Denau 01 u-ic responuenLS, aespiLc servlce ot notlce. 6. I have heard lcarned couiisel for flie appeUaiit and perused fhe record of fhe Coniniissioner, as also the uupugned awai'u. 7. Sliri V.G. Tainaskar, lear'ned counsel for tlic appellant .3 _-. _-) J-1-_ .- * _--t1-- .- -_^. .^, ,-. — I * .-. .- .4-; -. — -1 -, ^-^ -3 /^/^ -i <^ r-^t~\/~\ /s nas couLenaeu uiai iniuaiiy an appucauon aaiea u/-iu-^uut iiuder Section 10 of the Act, 1923 was submitted before fhe Goninussioner .against uie non-applicants Raiugwaroog^^jlri ^ aiid Rajesh Dhodlii. He fui'ther contends that present appeUant was made as noii-appUcaiit No.2 on 06-10-2007 in place of Rajesh Dhodlii on the basis of preUuiinaiy objection subiuitted by Rajesh Dhodhi on 15-09-2006. According to leai'ned counsel for fhe appellant fhe appUcatlon filed uiider Section 10 of uie Act, 1923 1s hopelessly baiTcd by t.irne against tlie appellaiit. In aduition to ftiis, alttiough fiie appellant has beeii impleaded as non-applicant No. 2 iu the cause title of the said application on 06-10-2007 but tliere is not even an iota of any allegation against the appellant in fhe body of uie application. As such there wa.s 110 basis for assucuuig tliat the deceased was 'in Uie employment of the present appellant at the relevant tkue aiid for awarding coiapensation agauist the pi'esent appellant and ui favour of the dependent/legal representative of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appeUant fuf'fher contended tliat fi^.e deceased /- \, does not conie witliin fhe definitlon of Workmen s Coinpensation Act as defined in Section 2(n) offhe Act, 1923. 8. From perusal of fhe record of fhe Commissioner, it is crystal clear tliat kutiaUy the present appeUant was not a party iii the application under Section, 10 of the Act, 1923, filed by fafher of the deceased. The present appellaiit has been knpleaded as non-applicaiit No. 2 before tiie Commissioner. On fhe preUminary objection fUed by original non-applicant No. 2 Rajesh Dhodlii stating fhat he had already sold fhe said agricultural farm to the present y ? .»» appellant long before fhe date of iacident Le. 31- 12-2003. The impleadnient of present appeUant as non-applicant No. 2 in place of Rajesh DhodM has been made on 07-10-2007 but tiU passing oftlie awai-d i.e. 22-06-2009, no aiiiendment has been made UT. the body of the application under Section 10 of fhe Act, 1923 and origuial non-applicaiit No. 1 Raniswaroop Gii'i has stUl been shown as supervisor of tlie Bhai'ni Dhodhi Krislii Farm. In such a state of affau', tlier-e was no basis for passuig award agauist fhe present appellant. The matter needs to be I'emitted back to fhe Couiaussioner for r'econsideration. 9. In view of tlie above, fhe appeal is ailowed in pail and tiie award inipugned dated 22-06-2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted to fhe Comrnissioner for reconsideratlon and passiiig of an award afresh after afforduig opportiiiiity of hearing to fhe parties wliich shaU iticlude an opportunity to amend fhe pieadmgs, adduce furtlier evidence, file documents or get the docunients verified etc., and after giving the above opportuiiity to fhe parties and after hearuig present appellaiit and the opposite party on Uie question of limitation and maintauiabUily of fhe application, fhe. Commissioner shaU pass a reasoned award afresh. 10. Learued counsel for the appeUant infornis fhat the appellant has deposited ftie entii'e ainount involved in fhe award with the Commissioner, the said ainount tf not uisbLU'sed to fhe claimant, shaU not be disbursed tiU the /; ^ decision afresh 1s taken by fhe Comiaissioner. tf fhe amoiiat is disbursed, the same shall be subject to fl'esh award to be passed. 11. The appeUant shaU appear before the Coinmissioner on 1st ofSeptember, 2011. 12. Suice no one appears for fhe respondents today, fhe Coiniaissioner shall issue notice to tlieiu for their appeai'ance. 13. There shail be no order as to costs. S&11^A^ ^^ G-^A^