Sheo Dutt Rai v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R M DOSHIT, ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Judgment
: Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the E.S.I.C : Dr. Anshuman Advocate. For the respondent no. 4: ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate. HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 27-06-2013 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1148 of 2012 (6) dt.27-06-2013 preferred by the workman against the judgment and order dated 30th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3031 of 2010. The matter arises from the claim made by the workman for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of the injury received by him while under the employment of M/s Usha Agro Industries Private Limited, the writ petitioner. Against the order for compensation in the sum of Rs.
53,000/- made by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation in case No. 26 of 2000(C), the recovery officer has recovered a sum of Rs. 33,000/- from the writ petitioner. We are informed at the bar that the said sum of Rs. 33,000/- has been paid to the workman, although ultimately the order of the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation came to be set aside by this Court in CWJC No. 13071 of 2002. Since the remand of the case, question was raised whether the workman was entitled to compensation under the Act, he being an insured person under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. It appears that the workman has also been paid compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,331/- under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. Several questions arise, whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against the order of the Commissioner made under the Act; whether the workman was an insured person on the date of the accident, etc.
Operative part
However, learned Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha appearing for the writ petitioner-employer gracefully states that the writ petitioner does not intend to recover the compensation in 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1148 of 2012 (6) dt.27-06-2013 the sum of Rs. 33,000/- received by the workman. Learned counsel Dr. K.N. Singh appearing for the appellant workman states that the workman shall be satisfied with the compensation in the sum of Rs. 33,000/- received by him. He shall not pursue the matter further. In view of the above statements, the appeal is partially allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3031 of 2010 is set aside to the extent, the learned single Judge has directed the certificate officer to remit the aforesaid sum of Rs. 33,000/- to the writ petitioner. It is further directed that the respondent- Employees State Insurance Corporation will not recover the compensation of Rs. 4,331/- paid to the appellant- workman. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Sujit/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.