RAYSHI NAGJI KOLI v. KUTCH SALT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LIMITED & 1
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
appeals are allowed and the Compensation Case Nos
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. One of the contentions on behalf of the respondent was that the claimants were not dependants of the deceased workmen. The learned Commissioner held that the appellants in the present appeals, who were the claimants in the above-numbered compensation cases, were not dependants of…
- Para 44. Today, learned counsel for the respondent agrees that the matters may be remanded. Hence, we admit the FA/1653/2005 JUDGMENT appeals and proceed to dispose of the same today since Ms. Shaili A. Kapadia waives notice and is agreeable to the matters being remanded. However…
Judgment
============================================================== RAYSHI NAGJI KOLI - Appellant(s) Versus KUTCH SALT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LIMITED & 1 - Defendant(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR BA VAISHNAV for Appellant No(s).: 1. MS SHAILI A KAPADIA for Respondent No(s).: 1. DELETED for Respondent No(s).: 2. ===================================================================== CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date : 14/07/2005 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL) All these appeals filed by the original claimants FA/1653/2005 JUDGMENT under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 arise out of the common judgment and orders dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Kutch in Compensation Case Nos. 63/99, 29/99, 30/99, 31/99, 32/99, 64/99, 65/99, 66/99, 67/99, 68/99, 75/99 and 76/99. The respondent no.1 is the principal employer and, the name of respondent no.2, who was the Contractor, has been deleted pursuant to the order dated 29th June, 2005. In all, there were 73 claim applications. They were filed by the claimants claiming to be the dependants of the workmen who had died in a cyclone on 9th June, 1998 while they were employed.
One of the contentions on behalf of the respondent was that the claimants were not dependants of the deceased workmen. The learned Commissioner held that the appellants in the present appeals, who were the claimants in the above-numbered compensation cases, were not dependants of deceased workmen and, hence, they were not entitled to compensation. He, therefore, dismissed the said compensation cases. The claimants have, therefore, filed these appeals challenging the decision of the learned Commissioner that they were not dependants. FA/1653/2005 JUDGMENT
These appeals came on for admission hearing on 29th June, 2005. On that day, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no.1, who appeared on caveat. It was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner had recorded the finding without giving an opportunity to the claimants to lead evidence and satisfy the Commissioner that they were, in fact, dependants. The learned counsel for the respondent however, contended that, in fact, the Commissioner had given the finding on the basis of the material on record. However, it was suggested at that time that the matters may be remanded so as to give an opportunity to the appellants to prove before the Commissioner that they were, in fact, dependants. The learned counsel for the respondent prayed for time to take necessary instructions in the matter. At the same time, notice for final disposal was also issued and Ms. Shaili Kapadia waived service for respondent no.1 and the matters were allowed to stand over till today.
Operative part
Today, learned counsel for the respondent agrees that the matters may be remanded. Hence, we admit the FA/1653/2005 JUDGMENT appeals and proceed to dispose of the same today since Ms. Shaili A. Kapadia waives notice and is agreeable to the matters being remanded. However, she pointed out that in several cases, the same claimant claimed to be the dependant of more than one deceased workman and without prejudice to their contention that none of the appellants was a dependant of any deceased workman, the Commissioner, in any case, cannot hold any claimant to be a dependant of more than one workman. The learned counsel for the appellant also agrees that, in any case, none of them can be held to be a dependant of more than one deceased workman. In view of the above, all these appeals are allowed and the Compensation Case Nos. 63/99, 29/99, 30/99, 31/99, 32/99, 64/99, 65/99, 66/99, 67/99, 68/99, 75/99 and 76/99 are remanded to the Commissioner with a direction to decide afresh whether the claimants were dependants or not after giving an opportunity to the claimants to give evidence and establish their claim as dependants. It will also be open to the respondent to contend that none of the appellants is at all a dependant of any deceased workman and give evidence. It is clarified that, in any case, the Commissioner cannot hold a claimant to be a dependant of more than one deceased workman. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid FA/1653/2005 JUDGMENT extent. The Commissioner shall make every endeavour to dispose of the proceedings at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. R & P to be sent down immediately. ( B.J. Shethna, J. ) ( M.C. Patel, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeals are allowed and the Compensation Case Nos
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 30.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 14 Jul 2005. The bench was B SHETHNA, M C PATEL.
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.