Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS versus SAWARN KAUR & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANAGING DIRECTOR & Ors v. SAWARN KAUR & Ors - FAO-2792-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 321 (23 December 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.2792 of 2005(O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.01.2006

Parties Name

Managing Director & others

Petitioner

versus

Sawarn Kaur & others

Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Ms.Sangita Dhanda, Advocate for the appellants JUDGMENT

Civil Misc. No.12115-CII of 2005

Counsel states that the deficiency in Court fee has been made good. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

Civil Misc. No.12116-CII of 2005

In view of reasons given in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 48 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.

FAO No.2792 of 2005

This order will dispose of FAO Nos.2792 to 2799 of 2005.

For facility of reference, facts are being taken from FAO No.2792 of 2005.

This appeal has been filed against order dated 29.6.2005, passed by the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-2, Amritsar. It is apparent from the records that respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed application, claiming compensation on account of death of Davinder Singh, their predecessor in interest, who as per them had died in an accident while in the employment of appellants, on 28.5.1996. Application was allowed and respondents, named above, were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,47,718/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till its realisation.

Primary argument of counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant, as such, award of compensation was not justified. It was contended that in fact, deceased was employed with respondent No.5, a contractor, therefore, appellant was not under an obligation to pay any compensation for his death.

After hearing counsel for the appellants, this Court feels that the argument raised is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected.

Death in the accident is admitted. There exists ample evidence on record to show that there existed relationship of master and servant between the appellants and the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the deceased was employed with respondent No.5, the contractor.

Compensation awarded is very meagre. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of facts.

Dismissed.

January 16, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge


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.