Ganpat C. Patil v. The Managing Director, Balasaheb
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. This matter arises out of an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Judge, Labour Court, Satara in W.C.A. No. 35 OF 1997. In fact the impugned order is about distribution of the amount deposited by the respondent No.1 to the claimants…
Judgment
Cause title
FIRST APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004
FIRST APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004
FIRST APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004
Ganpat C. Patil ..Appellant
versus
The Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Satara & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. N. A. Kulkarni for the Appellant. Mr. L. M. Acharya for the Respondents No.1.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST,2005 DATE : 31ST AUGUST,2005 DATE : 31ST AUGUST,2005
ORAL ORDER :
ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent No.1.
This matter arises out of an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Judge, Labour Court, Satara in W.C.A. No. 35 OF 1997. In fact the impugned order is about distribution of the amount deposited by the respondent No.1 to the claimants - heirs of the deceased. The appeal is however filed challenging the observations against :2: the present appellant. Counsel for the appellant states and the fact is not disputed that the appellant has a right to challenge the status of the deceased as his employee and therefore those finding should not come in his way. Since the appeal is filed only for the limited purpose, it is partly allowed and it is clarified that the observations made in the impugned judgment dated 25.7.2000 against the present appellant regarding the relationship between the present appellant and the deceased shall not come in the way of the appellant in any other proceedings which he chooses to file under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Appeal disposed of accordingly with Civil Application. No order as to costs.
31.8.2005
(D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 31 Aug 2005. The bench was D G DESHPANDE.
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.