^^^^^^^^^^S:s^^:.'",;:';'/.-'.-::ly' '• ?.- ir^-^^V^/-^^^/v ^!^^^"~w:^^''~"!^^ff^:0^^^^^ INTHBiiON'BLEHIGHeOURTCMHAmSGARHA: BILASPUR M.A. fCVNO. /2-2007 APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS ^lff''tt \»&A%^' ii&i^Sii^' ^y a^-""" %. Smt. Ashrita Bagare/aged about 20 years, W/o Late Ramgopal Bagare, K/o Village-ChilMati ( Mopka) Post Qffice-Mopka, Talisil &Distnct-Bilaspur(C.G.) Ku.Sanjna, aged abGiut 1 mdiath, D/o Lafe RamgoRal Baggre, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian mother Smt. AsKrita Bagare, R/o Vi|lage-Chilhati ^( Mopka) Pbst Office-MQpka^TaK&il 8tDistriGt-Bilaspur (C.G.) ..; VERSUS RESPONDENT/ NON-APPl-ICANT ^~~ Kerold Praveen' Lal, agect. 'about 50 years, S/o Denial Jgevan Lal, •Nishant ', , ,. ' ' PouttryFQpm, Jarhabhatfta, Rajiv GandHi Chowk, Bilaspur, • Tahsil. ; & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) „ MEMOOFAPF>EAl.UNDERSEGTION300FThlEWORKMAN COMOPENSATIONACT ^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Aopellants Aoplicants Respondent Non-Applicant M.A. [c1 No. 12/2008 Smt. Ashrita Bagare and another Vs Kerold Praveen Lai Present: Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava with Mr. I.S. Sahu, Advocates for the respondent. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General Tor the State. •\ \: ORDER (Oran (31st October, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal has been filed by the appettants/claimants against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum- Labour Court, Bilaspur (CG) dated 31.10.2007 passed in Case N0.291/WCA/COC-1-B/05, dismissing the claim petition of the appellants/claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that Ramgopal Bagare, aged 32 years, was working as a regular employee in the poultry farm of the respondent for the last six years. On 21.6.2005 during the course of his employment Ramgopal died due to electrocution. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow and minor daughter of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a total compensation of Rs.6,84,000/- for the death of Ramgopal Bagare under various heads. .-t: 3. However, learned Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation after hearing counsel for the respective parties, considering the material available on record, by the impugned award dismissed the claim : petition ofthe appellants/claimants. •<-'" -"' /-i. '•.'^ !;r-';' \ W^SSih S & .. & •? •^. ^s,. . '•'"'' .-y % 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Lower Court Record as also the impugned award. 5. During pendency of this appeal, vide order dated 7.9.201 1 this Court summoned the police record i.e. Merg tntim^tion No.73/05 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. from Police Station - Civil Lines, Silaspur, along with entire merg diary and other related papers, including the postmortem report. Learned Dy. Advocate General Mr. Vinay Harit has produced the aforesaid police record before us. 6. Upon perusal of the same, it is found that according to the police record, the respondent had brought the deceased to fhe concerned doctor, who declared him dead and referred the matter to the officer-in-charge of Police Station - City Kotwali, Civil Lines, Bilaspur Thereafter, Police Station - Civil Lines, Bilaspur prepared the merg intimation on that basis on 22.6.2005. Subsequentty, the police recorded statements of the concerned persons, including statement of the respondent, which bears signature of the respondent, and the same is being reproduced hereunder: vfvs\ cira S/o wo ^iPl-iici yftq7! '•39 50 WeT ;SIR vl'i^l'tll'dl, - ^jN ^Nt ^p ^ TTO P.S. cfT^-T Rt'il'tflj,'! Resi. 504617 Shop. 500234 4 ul'iSI'tlicSI Wift? "TTsft ^ttp c^ TjtRf -%cff ^ 3fr? wrfW TffEit -^cf> Tp; ihr f?RiFT yff trtc^t cpr ^PPT t f^? 'yrcp •<i*i<il4ici wct^ vft TTPT STRI 'ERgA cf?[ ^g^ -gTaT an ^ ?rg1 yff ^CT-T 11' clrftiR 5 WpT ^ 'EpPT tpWIT 8(1 sfr? i:(€trff 1800 wrar ^n sii 'fsp ^ci 21-06-2005 cCT ^lfa cfrft^T 8.45 VSt SffH WH ^H ^? cR^ tft •^n^ cp?^t ^ ftp ^ ^pm ^pr SF^ -snvsi cpro 4 ^(TPI! ^rei^ q?? %T an T^KS •iw>\lWv\ sire^ ^raT 35IR 'q' aff fe SIrITFIcR f^Tift ^ 'PTT^ cft ufteR WqTuT giRJt (R 4 SF^? qiTT ^ ^T?1? SW ^T fe WT ^TNra •^^ «Tcr q>^ c^qre^ iR?f TTcar?'CR fi^i irei air 'feaira WH t^ 'aWt q?t 'aftq, ITRT, <fl4*. Rft, Wfe tpl ^ellt.h'i '<l*1<ll41<?l tpt ^aruf ig 'gffK^ ff'i ^ ITRT ^ ira fe ^BCT WT 'q tj^r fet.H wprara ~s vfs^ ^ sft? ^si ^ ERIT^ ^ flti'iilMid ^t cpir ^an t c@? <^t cRtT^ ^) 4' sraCT WT cR cicffm an f^ PT? irai f fe ^ c^ •?(?i f^s gTprara vf^t ^N tTtff fSp^ 'SIcRT; 'flT?^ ^ •aflcRftuFT sirfe cmra <R(^ eff? ija 'Enftcf q^ f^ ^ ~?m <il4ict PR^ c^ -grg -^ •^^i an gfl^ ^?tgft •gT?Rf 4 H? 7raT ^> 'V^ W CI5ROI 4 'FT^ uffFlcff '^1 7. ln view of the above statement and also the reason that the issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and it has been held by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the \: \;. ^; deceased was not under the employment of the respondent, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Commissioner. 8. The intention to legislate the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the legislature was to increase the sense of security and render industrial life more attractive and thus, it is a social security and welfare legislation, the purpose of which is to protect the workman and make the employer and insurer of the workman responsible against the loss caused by the injuries or death during engagement of the workman under the employer. Therefore, if on reconsideration, it is found that the claimants could be entitled to get compensation, then disallowing this appeal at this stage would be an injustice to them. 9. Section 63 of the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958, provides that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the rules made thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to every employee of the establishment where M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 applies. 10. At this stage, we are not inclined to make any observation on merits of the case as we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Commissioner. Therefore, the better course would be for the Commissioner to re-determine the facts and issues on the basis of documents and evidence, for whjch the Commissioner may also summon the necessary records. Parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file the documents or get them verified etc. The police record shall be produced before the Commissioner on his direction. 11. In view ofthe above, we allowthis appeaf in part and set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for decision afresh, as observed above. 12.Parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 14th December, 2011. 13.LGR shall be sent back to the Commissioner without further deiay. \ \>, .i .; J .'/ :;f ^ 14. The police record shall be handed over back to Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General. 15.Certified copy of this order shall be supplied to Mr. Vinay Harit within threedays. ~——-""-_ Sd/- sd/:. . G.Minhauudin I.M^Quddusi """jSutun