MISC. APPE v. Rajbahadur Singh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. ^ularin Bai, aged about 21 years, Wd/o ^te Aajuram Patel, r/o village Raikheda, ?ost Raikheda, Kharora, Distt. Raipur |;u. Chhaya Patel, d/o Aajuram Patel, }ged about 1 % years, Minor Guardian tirough Mother Dutarin Bai, wd/o late ^ajuram Patet, r/o village Raikheda, Post iaikheda…
Judgment
'sn''<[CT<<ll^l*|];ff 'ii1®^<(a|^|< ^7 sjfirir 3n^T MISC. APPE L (CLAIM) N0.1051/2007 APPELLANTs RESPONDENTS
^ularin Bai, aged about 21 years, Wd/o ^te Aajuram Patel, r/o village Raikheda, ?ost Raikheda, Kharora, Distt. Raipur |;u. Chhaya Patel, d/o Aajuram Patel, }ged about 1 % years, Minor Guardian tirough Mother Dutarin Bai, wd/o late ^ajuram Patet, r/o village Raikheda, Post iaikheda Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G). Versus Rajbahadur Singh s/o Kalika Singh, aged about 38 years, Contractor Ispat Limited Industrial Area Siltara, Permanent Address: Bhilai 4, Lane No.9 Distt. Durg (C.G). M/s. Godavrai Ispat Limited, Industrial Area, Siltara, P.S. Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur (C.G) D.B: HON'Bl HON'BU .E SHRIL.C. BHADOO, J, & E SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,_J. LC.Bhadoo. J. bRALORDER (18.09.2007) Shri C.R. Sahu, couns^l fortheappellants. The appeal is barrec| by 150 days' limitation. It is heard on admission as well as on limitati on. XI-HC—78 'ys^ '^wivft'ti, atliy'is, Rioiiyy 1\ ^ y^o, \0'5t /^an VtW^l *NI*"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""W^ V>~ sn^r wra?
(lll!i'A°l<tr) an^r ?ii K-iith WIT 311^1 ihii=t> TOIRK ^ll^T 3Tltw ^filft:l4iTT^i^i<;Tf ^'f^^T ^^R ^sifwsii^T The appellants who are v^ife and daughter of the deceased Aajuram Patel, have preferred this appea passed by the Commissioner f(| Raipur, in case No.277AWC Act, being aggrieved by the order dt.07.2.2007 ^r Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, |2002 (Fatal). We have heard counsel f<>rthe appellant. In issue no.3, the learfied commissloner after considering the '. Singh reached to the conclusion that the evidence of employer namety B deceased was getting Rs.205(y- per month as per Annexure P-2 which to the Joint Director, Industrial Health and was sent by letter dt.26.3.2002 In issue no.4 Security, Raipur. provisions of section 4(1)0f tl^e Workmen Compensation Act 1923 the compensation of the monthly satary and claimant is entitled for 50% as| it has been further hetd that in view of the after determining the 23 years factor 219.93, a total compen< age of deceased by applying the relevant sation amount of Rs.2,25,428/- has been awarded.
Learned counsel for the| appellant has not been abte to argue that how the award is on the lowerl Section 30 of the Workmen I side. More over, as per the provisions of Compensation Act 1923, an appeal maintainable on the substantijal questlon of law. The counsel appellant has not been able to aise any substantial question of taw in this appeal. Not only this, no reasofiable case has been shown to condone the for the delay in filing of this appeal. Therefore, the appeat lj)eing devoid of merit, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on (nerits aswell as on limitation, at the motion stage. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge
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.