FA/1617/1991 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1617 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= RATANBEN KOYABHAI PARMAR & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus USHA PRISTED SIPER INDUSTRIES - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : ....... for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, MS MITTAL V RAHEVAR for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 28/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th March, 1991 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), and Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Panchmahals in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 9/1989, whereby the said application was allowed and FA/1617/1991 2/3 JUDGMENT the appellants-original applicants were awarded an amount of Rs.43,967.92 paise towards compensation with interest @ 6% from the date of application till its realization. 2.0. The short facts of the case are that deceased Manubhai was working as labour with the opponent-Company. On 19.11.1988, during the course of employment, deceased Manubhai met with an accident and sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately succumbed to it. 2.1. The legal heirs of the deceased, the appellants herein, filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Panchmahals at Godhra for recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs.54,896/- under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2.2. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record partly allowed the application. However, no penalty was imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. The main contention raised in this appeal is that while passing the impugned award, the trial Court ought to have imposed penalty in view of the fact that FA/1617/1991 3/3 JUDGMENT the accident was within the knowledge of the employer. Having perused the evidence on record, it appears that no evidence was produced on record to the effect that they are entitled to get penalty on the total amount of compensation. However, it is a matter of discretion whether to grant the penalty or not. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/