DIVISION^ENCH v. Smt. Varsha

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION^ENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU,CJ & HON'BLE SHR! V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. 204 OF 2007 Manager, International & Another Life Care Versus Smt. Varsha Present: Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the appellants. ^. None for the respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 14th February, 2007) The following the Court was passsd Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. This appeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth "the Act, 1923") has been directed against the order dated 2-12-2006 passed the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (henceforth "the Commissioner") in case No. Category 1/B/133W.C.Act/Fatal/05. (,,- (2) On 22-1-2004 Shri Sangarsh Lal Singh (since deceased) being in employment of the appeltants was coming with a cash of Rs.3,92,985/- to Bank on the motorcycle, but on the way the cash was looted by two unknown persons, who in order to snatch the cash.killed him.

Appeltants did not pay or deposit any amount towards compensation; therefore, the wife of the deceased was dragged into [itigation to recover her claim from the employer/appellants. (3) Appellants did not raise dispute before the Commissioner that the deceased was not their workman. Commissjone!_OD_Jt(e strength of ![)^|^-,..tttP!!aBI ^ i evidence recorded finding of income of the deceased and in accordance with prescribed mode • calculated the compensation and awarded Rs.4,07,700/-. A penalty of Rs.20,000/- has also been imposed on appellants. (4) Appeliants preferred this appeai proposing the following substantiai questions of law in thier memo of appeal: • Whether the tearned Court below was correct in holding that the appellants were liable to pay compensation to the applicanV respondent even though his employment was not such as defined-in section 2(1) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or schedule II thereof ? (n) of • Whether the learned Court below was correct in holding that the appeliants were also liabls to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under the facts and ciroumstances of the case ? • Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the leamed Court below was justified in awarding the compensation as has been done by it ? (5) When appellants themselves admitted before Commissioner deceased was workman learned Commissioner relying on it has recorded a flnding that the deceased was appeliants' workman, how such a finding recorded by the iearned Commissioner can be said to be perverse or illegal.

(6) So far as grant of penaity is concerned, is manifest appeilants wiilful'y committed breach of Section 4A of the Act, 1923 and made themselves liable for imposition of penalty. (7) We are of the considered view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed summarily and is accordingly .•^f> dismissed in limine. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge