;iii^N?iin? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1112 of 2009 Appellant Non-apDlicant Respondents Applicants/ Claimants. The Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board through its Managing Director, Raipur (CG) Versus 1) Gokul Ram Dhobi s/o. Biju Dhobi about 50 years. 2) Parvati w/o. GokulRam Dhobhi, aged about41 years. 3) Bramha s/o. Gokul Ram Dhobhi, aged about 16yers. 4) Vishnu s/o. Gokul Ram Dhobhi,aged about 13 years. Respondents No. 3 and 4 minors through guardian respondent No.1. All r/o. village & post Maroud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 5) The Agriculture Department through its Secretary,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). (Misc. Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar) Present: Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Sydeep Johri, counsel for respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.S/State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 10-1-2011) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for setting aside the order/award dated 13-5-2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (CG) in Case No. 16/2002/W.C.Act, whereby the Commissioner for Workmen's 2 ^"!ttWU«lN» Compensation has awarded monitory compensation of Rs.1,71,781/- Jo the respondents No. 1 to 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 4/applicants filed a claim application before the Labour Court for monitory compensation before the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court/Raipur (CG) as Case No. 16/2002/W.C.Act on account of death of Paramanand stating therein that the deceased Paramanand was son of applicants No.1 & 2 Gokul Ram Dhobi and Parvati and brotherof applicants No 3 and 4. Deceased Paramanand was working as Grader in Madhya Pradesh State Seeds and Farm Development Corporation, Region at Maroud. He used to earn Rs.1565/- per month as salary and at the time of death, he was aged about 22 years. In the intervening night of 17th & 18th December, 2000 while he was working in the grading plant of Maroud Region in M.P. State Seeds Farm Development Corporation, some unknown persons murdered the deceased during the course of employment. The Labour Court on the basisof the pleadings of the parties and material available on record and considering the evidence adduced by them awarded monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.1,71,781/- to the respondents 1 to 4 herein. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no nexus between cause of death and employment and the application filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 herein was not maintainable in view of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further submits that the alleged death of Parmanand did not '^•4""^- f&.2 \ j 1 ^,'%-. ^^./ ^s^y ^&^:"^:^" take place arising out of accident, the deceased does not come within the definition of workman and murder of deceased has not been proved by the respondents No. 1 to 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel forthe appellant has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rashida Haroon Kupurade vs. Div. Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1434 and in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath vs. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, reported in 2009 (3) SBR 352. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.S/State has supported thearguments of counsel for theappellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Labour Court. 8. From perusal of the record it is clear that Gokul Ram Dhobhi - AW/1 has clearly stated in his deposition that deceased Paramand was his son and his age was about 22 years. hlis son used to earn Rs.1565/-per month as salary by working in the grading plant of Maroud Region under M.P. State Seeds Farm Development Corporation and his son while working in the said Corporation was murdered on 17-12-2000 at about 11.00 p.m. He submitted the documents 1 to 5 before Labour Court i.e., legalnotice (Ex.P/1), Receipt (Ex.P/2), reply to notice (Ex.P/3), death certificate (Ex.P/4) and marks sheet (Ex.P/5) which were duly proved by him. He has not got any compensation from non-applicants. The aforesaid 4 statement of AW/1 - Gokul Ram Dhobhi has not been rebutted by non-applicants. Hence, it can be believed that the deceased Paramanand s/o applicant No.1 - Gokul Ram Dhobhi was working in Madhya Pradesh State Seeds and Farm Development Corporation, Region at Maroud and thus he was under employment of the non-applicants. It was also undisputed that he was murdered by some unknpwn persons because non-applicants had not rebutted the statement of applicant No1 Gokul Ram Dhobhi, father of the deceased. 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of case, material available on record and on a close scrutiny of the evidence, this court is of the opinion that the labour court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the award which is within its jurisdiction and the same does not call for any interference by this court. The case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts ofthose cases. 10. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju