y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bte Shri Justice Radhe Shwam Sharma MisGellaneous Appeal (Cl No. 1129/2009 2.n APPELLANT NON^PPLICANT Respondente ne^lcartts ClaEmante Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. The Chhattisgarh ^ate ^gricultwe Marketing Board, through; Its Managing Director, Raipur (CG) Ramhu Gond S/o. Suklal, aged about 50 years; Pysat Bai W/o. Ramhu Gond, aged about45years; Mahesh S/o. Ramhu Gond, aged about 16 years; Through natural guacdian R-1 Ramhu Gond All R/o. Village and Post Maroud, CX^rict Dhamtari (CG) The Agriculture Departenent, through : }ts Secretary, DKS Bhawan, Raipyr Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensafion Act. Present: Shri M.K. Shaduri, CGUHS^S for the appelEant Shri Devarshi Thakur, Advocate appears on behaf of Shrl Sudeep Johri, counsel for respondente 1 and 2. Nonefor other respondents. ORAL ORDER (20th Juty, 2011.) The appellant hs®preferred thls appeal Kider Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for setting aslde the order/award dated 13.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (CG) in Case No.15/2002A/V.CAct, whereby the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has swarcted monttory compensation of Rs.1,70,578/- to the respondents 1 to 3. ^ ''®^S^^;'.;:A /?' ^ ^ ...^" 2-^ 2. Brief facts of the case, are that respondents 1 to 3/applicants filed a claim application for monitory eompensation befbre the Gourt of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (C©)as case No.15/2002A/V.C.Act on account ofdeath of Laxman, stating therein that the deceased Laxman was the son of respondent No.1 & 2 Ramhu Gond and Pusat Bai and brother of respondent No.3 Mahesh. The deceased was working as a Grader in Madhya Pradesh State Seecte and Farm Development Corporation, Region at Maroud. He used to eam Rs.1 ,562/- per month as salary and at the time of death, he was aged about 24 yeam. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th De<»mber, 2000 white he was working in the grading plant of Maroud Region in M.P. State Seeds Parm Development Corporation, some unknown persons murdered the deeeased during the course of employment. 3. The Labour Court on the basis of pleadings oS the parties and material available on record and considering the evidence adduced by Vhem awarded monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.1,70,578/- to the responderrts 1 to 3 herein. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant submite Vhai there is no nexus betweenthe cause of deafti and employment and the applloation filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein was not maintainable in view of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further submNs that the alleged death of Laxman did not take place arising out of accident, the deceased does not come within the definitjoh of workman and murder of deceased has not been proved by the respondents 1 to 3. In support of his arguments, leamed counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme r r: y 1 ^ry w Court in the matter of Rashida Haroon Kupurwle vs. Div. Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1434 and in MaUteirjuna G. Hiremath vs. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insuraice Co. Ltd., and another reported in 2009 (3) SBR 352. 5. On the contrary, leamed counsel appearing for the respondente have supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 6. I have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused the record ®f the Labour Court. 7. From perusal of the record, it is ctear that Ramhu Gond - AW/1 has ctearly stated in hls deposftion that deceased Laxman was his son and his age was about 24 years. His son used to earn Rs.1,562/- per month as salary by working in the grading plantof Maroud Region under M.P. State Seeds Farm Development Corporation and his son, while working in the satd Corporation, was murdered on 17.12.2000 at about 11.00 p.m. He submitted the documents 1 to 4 before Labour Court i.e. legal notice (Ex.P/1), Receipt (Ex.P/2), reply to notice (Ex.P/3),death certiflcate (Ex.P/4) which were duly proved by him. He has not got any compensation from non-applteant. The aforesatd statement of AW/1 Ramhu Gond has not been rebutted by non- applicants. Hence, it can be believed that the dece8®edLaxman S/o. of respondent No.1 Ramhu Gond was working in Madhya Pradesh Stsrte Seeds and Farm Devetopment Corporation, Region at Maroud and thus he was under employment of the non-applfoant. It was also undisputed that he was murdered by some unknown persons because non-applteant had rwt ^^ ^ II i^.^^. "^ "%^... '^..^' -70 rebutted the statement of applicant No.1 Ramhu Gond, father of the deceased. 8. Considertng all the facts and circumstances of the case. materiai available on record and on a dose scrutiny of the evidence, this Courtis of the opinion that the labour Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the award whfoh is within its jurisdlction and the eame does not call for any Snterference by this Court. The case laws cited by leamed counsel for the appellant are notapplicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are distinguishable for the facts of those cases. 9. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merit is Itable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge ^ L / ^ Bini