S. No. 18 v. Mrs. Shahnaz Majeed

Through: Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R (ORAL) 19.11.2024

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter for short the Act of 1923) against order dated 31.03.2022 (for short the impugned order) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Srinagar, (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in case titled as “Mrs. Shahnaz Majeed Vs. Director and Anr.,”

2. Before adverting to the appeal in hand, a brief background of the facts need to be delineated hereunder: -  One Abdul Majeed Wani, husband of the respondent herein, while working as a Fireman under Belt No. 582 in the Fire & Emergency Services Department, sustained grievous injuries, while attending a fire and rescue call on 10th December 2017, during the course of his employment, on account of which injuries he died on 16th December 2017.  The wife of the deceased respondent herein on 16th February 2019, filed an application before the Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1923 for compensation owing to the death of her husband in the course of his employment with the appellant herein, whereupon the Commissioner summoned the 1 respondents in the application being the appellants herein who upon entering appearance filed objections to the application, opposing the same inter-alia on the premise that an amount of Rs.1 lakh cash reward stands paid to the family of the deceased in recognition of bravery of the deceased, including a State Medal and Citation granted by the State Government, further stating that the family of the deceased also came to be paid death-cum-retirement gratituty to the tune of Rs.10 lakh, besides engaging the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994.  The Commissioner, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following two issues: - i) ii) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation as per Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to the petitioner in addition to service benefits ? Whether, SRO-43 can be construed s compensation under Employees Compensation Act or not ?  The Commissioner, after considering the application and after taking into consideration the respective pleadings of the parties, passed the impugned order holding the respondent herein entitled an amount of compensation of Rs.9,89,625/- together with interest of Rs.4,84,916/- @ 12% w.e.f. 01.02.2018 to

28.02.2022 totaling the amount of compensation as Rs.14,74,541/-, besides awarding Rs.5,000/- as funeral charges requiring the respondents appellant herein to deposit the amount covered in the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice.

4. Appellants herein has questioned the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the memo of appeal. Reply has been filed by the respondent herein to the case set up by the appellant herein in the memo of appeal wherein the appeal is being opposed inter-alia on the premise that the order under challenge has been passed by the Commissioner validly and legally under and in terms of provisions of Act of 1923. 2 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Before proceeding to advert to the instant appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 30 of the Act of 1923, which for the sake of brevity and convenience is extracted and reproduced hereunder: - “30 Appeals. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely- (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing dependants of a deceased [employee], or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; the distribution of compensation among (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than [ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify]: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: [Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.] (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section.” As is manifest from the plain reading of the Section supra the first proviso appended thereto stipulates that no appeal shall lie against any order of the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, the fundamental plea raised by the appellants herein in the instant appeal is that the dependents of the deceased stand paid all service benefits after the death of the deceased, besides engaging the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds including the 3 payment of Rs.01 lakh as recognition of the bravery of the deceased, and that the Commissioner overlooked the said position obtaining in the matter and passed the impugned order contrary to the law and facts.

7. Insofar as the payment of relief claimed to have been made to the respondent herein by the appellants herein on account of death of the deceased in the course of employment inasmuch as the release of retiral benefits comprising leave salary, risk allowance, gratuity, etc. etc. is concerned, law in this regard has been settled and is no more res-integra that a claim for compensation under the Act of 1923 is no bar in case of receipt of payment of relief or retiral benefits by the dependents of a deceased employee.

8. Besides perusal of the record would reveal that the respondents appellants herein before the Commissioner had not disputed the employer employee relationship or else the death of the deceased on 16th December 2017, in the course of his employment while discharging his duties thus the pleas raised by the appellants herein in the memo of appeal pale into insignificance in this view of the matter.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter inasmuch as the case set up by the appellants herein in the memo of appeal, it can safely be concluded that no substantial question of law is involved for determination by this Court in the instant appeal.

10. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The award amount claimed to have been deposited by the appellant herein before this Court is directed to be released/transferred in the bank account of the of the respondent herein, along with interest if any accrued thereon, subject to proper verification and identification of the respondent herein by her counsel. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 19.11.2024 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No 4