1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1284/2005. (Milind Ashokrao Goswami Vs. Satish Gulabrao Kshirsagar) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SP Sonpawale, Adv. for appellant; ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23 rd March, 2010. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The employer feels aggrieved by the Award of Rs.17,972/- dated 5.9.2005 recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, questioning the capacity of the employee to work in spite of there being a restriction imposed, being so displayed on the Notice board. 3) I do not agree that mere publishing a notice on the notice board by itself was derogatory on the part of the claimant since apparently the claimant, a 19- years old boy, was discharging his 2 duties for the benefit of the employer. The calculation carried by the learned Judge also does not warrant any interference. No merit, no substantial question of law could be formulated. First Appeal dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa1284.05