ls @ §3a€§aysgom .._ \§\/ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT k cvé“? BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH A'l‘ BILASPUR /’ § V Czg L2oo4 W,” / ,/ ‘4 Prashant Kurnar Das, Son of Shri Umakant Das, aged about 29 years, resident of village — Deurgaon — Karanji, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District — Bastar (C.G.) M.A.NO. VERSUS LAIM FOR AWARD CLAIMED EFORE THE LEARNED LABOUR COURT AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED LABOUR COURT. v"/ Rs. 1,00,000/ Rsy/ 83,862.00 WITH PENALTY OF Rs. 5,000/-. a DISMISSAL OF AWARD RELIEF SOUGHT IN APPEAL C B — ,/ RESPONDENT No.1 / / 1. /, Kumari Mangal Deyee, Daughter APPLICANT NO. 1 of Shri Baliram, aged about 17 ’years (minor) : through - natural guardian Father Baliram, Son of x959CMM‘ Shri Ludru, aged about 4O years, gca. V/' WU” resident of village Deurgaon, Padargudapara, Tah Jagdalpur, FTP wdb‘L “ .. // “K Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ‘h' wri§ “K ‘3‘“ RESPONDENT No.2 2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., NON-APPLICANT N02 /” Through : Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) F (9 PAgEi 3:7. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3O OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 ' Heard 0n admission. {2) This is owner’s appea! under Sectian 30 0f the Warkmen’s Compensatian Act, 1923 chauenging the award of cempensatiun in favour 0f the ciaimant Ku. Manga! Deyee. {3) Counse! for the appenant has argued that the finding to the effect that the claimant I wurkmen was empmyed with the appenant is perverse and erroneous. According to him the evidenoe avaiiabie on record hae not been appreciated in its true perspective. {4) Having perused the record and more particularly the statement of Ku'. Mange! Deyee and the statement of VSonmati, who was an eye witness, this Court is satistied that the Commissioner, Workman Compensation has not committed any error in hoiding that on the date of incident the claimant was empioyed under the appeiiant I owner. The oiaimant has oieariy stated that she was empioyed in the freid by the ‘appeliant who used to pay R‘sm per day to her. Sonmati has APPELLANT Ver$us .—L' stated that she was wnrking along with ctaimant in the premiges of the appeaantv at the time of incident. Though, the appeiiant has made a statement that the ciaimant was not wurking under him but he ha$ admitted that the tractor and thresher' belong to him and that V Veerendra Chandrakar was his driver. He has aieo admitted that tn vitiage Deurgaon he has agricuiturai iand andrthat the driver was engaged in the jab of threshing wheat on his instructions Thus the record contents mass of evidence to the effect that the ctaimant was empioyed under the appeiiani. t5) This appeai has no substance and it is dismissed at the admission stage. H Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishr Judge i ’ " i R