IN THE CHHATriSGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR Misc. Ap^eal^No.^? ^-Of 2008 MEMORANDUM OF MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN COMPENATION ACT ^ APP^LLANT NJ0^-APPLICANT Rathi S/o Shri Manak Lal Rathi, aged about^years, " Amar Buiiders" Village and Post Saja, TahsU Saja, District Durg (CO). R^SPONDENTS ^l. /(PPLICANTS VERSUS Smt. Geeta Mishra W/o The Late Anu Mishra, aged 35 years. ^^ y' ^. Abhinay Mishra S/o Late Anu Mishra , aged 15 years. 3^Ku. Anubha Mishra D/o Late Anu Mishra, aged 8 years. ^: Krishna Mishra S/o Late Anu Mishra, aged 01 years. (Appellant No. 2 to 4 minors through natural guardian mother Smt. Geeta Mishra). < Narayan Prasad Mishra S/o Late Janki Prasad Mishra, aged 65 years, resident of Viliage Kodwa. ^^ Smt. Gulab Bai W/o Shri Narayan Prasad Mishra, aged 62 years, resident of Village Kodwa. All resident of Village Kodwa, Post Office Mohbhatta, Tahsil Berla, DistrictDurg<CG). e© MEMORANDUM OF MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION'30 /Q-^_ OF WORKMEN COMPENATION ACT /!\ ^_ •:^ Aopellant Resoondents HIGH COURT 01= CHHATT1SOARH AT BILASPUR DMSION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.C»JODUSl& HON'BLE MR.GULAM M1NHAJUDDIN.M M.AJd No.887/2008 Mahendra Rathi , Vs Sntf. Geeta Mistira & ottiers Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate for the appeliant. Mr. P.K. Dhurundhar, Advocate for the respondents No.1,5 & 6. ORDERfOrall (16mJune.2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed thls miscellaneous appeal agatnst the ordw dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Commisstoner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (CG) (for brevity the Commtssioner') in Case No.107/WC/2007(Fatel). 3. Brief facts of the case are ttiat the claimants bebig are tegal hehrs of cteceased Anu Mishra, who died under the employment ofthe appellant herein, had fited a claim applicatte»n before the Commissioner seeking cwnpensatien along witii interest and penalty from the appellant herein. The Oommjsstoner aitewe^ the claim application, awarcted a sum of Rs.3,22,298/- atong with interest @ 6% as also penalty of Rs.1,61,149/-. 4. We have heard teamed counsel for the parties and perused the Impi^gned award as also records ofthe tribunal below. 5. The substantial question of law involved in tihe appeal is whether on the facts and circumstance®narrated in the claim petition. the same is maintainable orthe Commissioner was right jn awardtng compensation and wiwtlwr the ctalm comes under the scope of liaiMlity of the employer for compensatton as provideGl in the Workmen's Compensation Act* 1923 (fbr short the Act'). 6. Section 3 of the Act provides employer's liabUMy for eompenaatlon. Sectlon 3 (1) provldes that if personal injury is caused to (an employee) by accident arismg out of and in the course of his employment, hts employer shall be Mable to pay compensation in accordance with the provteions of thl»Chapter. Section 3 (2) of the Act envisages that if an employee emptoyed in any employment specffied in Part A, B or C of the Schedule-MI, as the case may be, contracte any Gllsease specified therein as an occupational disease pecuNar to that emptoymwt. the emptoyer shalt be liabte to pay compensatton, but no compensation shall be lffl3iJwiliSI!*BnpW^W'%l :': s'"^ ^ililSSi^SiKfS ^\ payable to an employee in respect of any diseast unles&the disease is dlrectly attributabte to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the cou^e of his employment. Section 4 ofthe Act prescribes amourt ofcompengation where death or permanent/temporary disabtenient resulte from tlieIn^iry. 7. Perusal of the impugned order it is ewideitt that tiie Conimissioner has not framed any issue in the above regard and passed ttie impi^ned order wfthout considering that whether case of the claimants conr»swithin the scope of the Act or not. 8. Therefore, considering the factsand dreumstances @f the case, weare of th® opinion that the matter be remitted back to the Comraissioner for decision afresh in llght of the observations made above. 9. In the result, we allow the instant appeal in part, set asicte the oider dated 24.4.2008 and remit the matter back to the Gommjssloner for cteclsion afresh in light of the observations made in thls order. The Commisstoner shatl prQVide opportunity to the parttes to adduce fuither evidence, if smy, amend the pteadings, file or verify documents atready flted. It Is also direeted that fie amount, which has alieady bwn deposited by the ap^ettant and yet not disbursed to the claimants, shall not be disburaed to th®claimamte or reftindeci to the appetlanttill the disposal of claim application afresh by the Conimissioner. 10.The parties are directed to appear before the Commisstoner on 26th Juhy. 2011 either in person or thrwigh their counsel. The Registry te directed to Imnsmit the record of the Commissioner without further detay. 11 .Certified copy as per rules. ^y Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge