IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /2009 W.P.^)'/2.2.. ^p- ^ Petitioner p^,>»^<s"Jr -^ sv^ Respondent ^.^^,L'<=—>-?~5 -)0'l°-1 ^f^/ ^^y /yy ^y/ w y /-' Chhattisgarh Infra Structure Development Corporation, (Transport Division), Amanaka, Raipur, Through Depcif Manager, C.I.D.C., Amanaka Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Manjit Kaur, Widow ofTarsem Singh, Aged about 42 years 2. Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Daughter ofLate Tarsem Singh, Aged about 29 years 3. Sangram Singh Son ofLate Tarsem Singh, Aged about 29 years 4. Ku. Kulvinder Kaur Daughter ofLate Tarsem Singh, Aged about 23 years 5. Kuldip Singh Son ofLate Tarsem Singh, Aged about 29 years C/o Shri Sucha Singh Driver, Behind Sabji Market, New Khursipar Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Through : General Manager, Habib Ganj, Bhopal (M.P.) -"> PETITION UNDER ARTTCLE 227 OP CONSITUTIQN OF INDIA ey^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (227) No. 3412/2009 Chhattisgarh Infra Structure Development Corporation (Transport Division), Amanaka, Raipur Versus Smt. Manjit Kaur and another SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT: Shri G.D. Wasvani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORAL ORDER (18-1-2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 27- 4-2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation/Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 25/WC Act Fatal/2008 whereby objection raised by the petitioner regarding extent of its liability vide Ex. P-2 was rejected. Facts ofthe case, in brief, are as under:- 2. An award was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Corapensation, Durg on 23-3-1999 against the M.P.S.R.T.C., Depot Durg awarding Rs. 74,760/- along with interest. After bifurcation of the State, the said award was sought to be executed against the petitioner herein. In execution of the award, a warrant of attachment was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection that its liability is confined to 22.24%. For this he placed reliance before the Commissioner upon the copy of notification Annexure P-1 issued by the Central Govemment but the objection has been turned down without assigning any reason therefor. 3. Shri Wasvani, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend, in terms of notification Annexure P-1, the "<"?... •ff J:r '^ •ff' petitioner's liability is confined to 22.24% and after calculation, the amount has already been deposited by the petitioner before the Commissioner and for remaining, the award cannot be e^ecuted against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed in para 18 of a decision of Division Bench of this Court filed along with the petition as Annexure P-5 (M.A. No. 934/1997 decided on 16-9-2008), in which the Division Bench has held that two corporations are liable to deposit the amount in ratio of Uabilities owned by them and/or in terms of settlement as a consequence of re- organizatlon. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this court, rejection of petition preferred by the petitioner is perse illegal. The liability of the petitioner is confined to 22.24% and the remaining amount of award has to be paid by the Corporation itself, for which, the respondents are free to move execution application. The petition is accordingly aUowed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge i»