m THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BELASPUR (C.O.) M.A.jC ) No. i&'T- 200^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION Act 1923. AppeUant ^.1 W5" e..^""" ...i -*..••-" Project In charge Power Mac Project, Through CSEB 2x250 MW, Tah & Disst. Korba East (C.G.) Registered office at 2nd floor, Lohia towers, Ninnala Convent Road, Vijayawada.520010 Versus Respondents 1. Shiv Nath Ram S/o Late Shri Bhagi Ram, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Patharri Para, Korba, Tah. Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2.Side In charge Power Mac Project Through, CSEB 2x250 MW, Tah & Disst. Korba, East (C.G.) 3. F'roject In charge, BHEL Through CSEB 2x250 MW, Tah 85 Disst. Korba (C.G.) 4.Mamu Contractor, Power Mac Project Through, CSEB 2x250 MW, Korba, Tah 8s Disstt. Korba, (C.G.) S.Project Manager CSEB 2x250 MW, Korba East, Distt. Korba(C.G.) -rn^-. ~I~ "^^ e-3 T ^ XI-HG—78 ^sr "MI-MIM^, oyl'y'Kc, fsi<niyy,< .r^, /^CO ^<», ^i^j ^Wvi\ *Mlch ••• •• • •y-^ 200 ^ 3ii^i'q?R? (lcii-l«i<t'!i) S^V W K.-i 'vn sn^y **< TOdWHftdsn^i ^ ^. -llj i '^^-S Shri Ashok Patil, counsei fo| Shri Vikas Pradhan, counse] None for other respondents| Heard on I.A. No.01, appiic] in filing the appeal. On due consideration, th| application, 1 am satisfied that Vr\ explaining the cause of delay in fi! spplication is al!owed and the del hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal filed by prjnci? dated 03-06-2008 passed b^ Compensation, La&our Court, (N.F.). The facts briefly stated are Undisputedly, respondent'l injuries which arose out of and di is a!so not in dispute that ths a| The learned Commissioner appellant as wel) as respondents after service of notice. av chi<l[<Tl<i1i Hl+lflt ^f fe<^ <F'i^R ^STfOT 311^51 •the appeiiant. ifor respondent No.1. iation for condonation of deiay a grounds mentioned in ths e appeilant has succeeded in ;ing the appeai. Therefore, the iv caused in fiting the appeai is al employer against the order Commissioner, Workmen's in case No.34W.C.Act/08 Kdrba ts under: No.1 Shivnath Ram sustained i(ring course of employment. it i(3pe!lant is principal empioyer. ^ceeded ex-parte against the ). 2 to 5 on their absence %^.^'^/' "-?^*'%-HC—78 ^J"; 'S^t -^WM^, E9ti)'H41<», fsldl'Hy A1 A Cc^ ^ic . S^^i ^ an^T TpRi' (yiijf^iT) an^l w R-fi'* ?T^n sn^?T ^fNi TOTOR ^lfei SII^I -SL nld rsvoilfr resp|on -ne--feameei- -CommTssi6n1 evidence led, material placed ar the award of Rs.73,198/'- in fsvo^f the appeilant liable as well as resp|( An appiication preferred byj the ex-parte order was dismissed) order dated 27-08-2008 (Annexur^ challenged by the appeilant and h^ Learned counse! for the Sectlon 12 of the Workmen's Cont 'the Act'), the appeliant being p|' payment of compensation to point out any iilegality committed .passing the award and afso col question of taw which may arise idf tn view of above, the appe^ dismissed at admissJOR staae. <*l<<l7l<i)-( t|Wdf ^ feIA 'rfsR^R ^; srfipi 3iii?T ii- onr close- scrutiny bf the submissions made, passed of respondent No.1 holding la'ents No. 2 to 4. the appellant for setting sside by the Commissioner vsde its A-4). The ssid order was not id attained finatity. appeilanf admifs that under ipensafion Act, 1923 (for short mcipat emp!oyer is tiable for ident No.1. He couid not the fearned Commissioner in jfd not point any substantiaf r decision making of this case. beina devoid of substance is resOon fclv N.K. AgrawaE Judge