Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus ABU TALIB AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India And Another v. Abu Talib And Another - WRIT - C No. 31442 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 9148 (8 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.31442 OF 2000

Union of India and another                                ....Petitioner

Versus

Abu Talib and another                                    ...Respondents

------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 19.4.2000 by which the petitioner's application for recall of the award and for condonation of delay in filing the recall application has been rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the Union of India as well as learned counsel for the respondent Shri Qazi Vakil Ahmad.

The facts reveal sadly that the respondent No.2 met with an accident during the course of his employment and has lost a limb.  The award has given him compensation of Rs.1,27,194.68 plus some penalty.  

Having gone through the award, I am of the opinion that the award of the authority under the Workmen Compensation Act requires no modification or interference by this Court and the award by itself is correct.

Even otherwise, against the award of the authority under the aforesaid Act, an appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act.  The Union of India did not file the appeal but instead came in writ proceedings against an order rejection the application for recall.  This in itself  was to circumvent the remedy provided under the statute and therefore cause delay in granting relief in a heard case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, argued that he may be given an opportunity of rehearing.  

I am of the opinion that the award of the Labour Court is fair considering that it is not denied by the petitioner that the respondent workman has lost one limb.  As such, the matter of rehearing in this case is wastage of time, since the compensation given is just about adequate and possibly not even enough to take care of the difficulties faced by the workman after the loss of his leg.  

I hereby direct the Railway authorities to comply with the award under the Workmen's Compensation Act within a period of ten days from the date of issue of a certified copy of this order.  The amount, which has been deposited by the said award, will be released to the workman within a period of one month.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 8/5/06

L.F./31442/2000/16


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.