SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Kar) 165

K.J.SHETTY, P.A.KULKARNI
JAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, MADUGIRI – Respondent


JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (called shortly as 'the Act') is preferred against the order made in w. C. C. No. 6/73-74 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, madhugiri.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the appeal are these: Krishnappa,, the husband of the appellant was s cleaner in the lorry belonging ta the Public Works department of Madhugiri Division on September 13, 1967, he unlortunately met with a fatal accident. The department did not pay or deposit the compensation due to the appellant under S. 4 of the Act. On September 24, 1969 the appellant, therefore, moved the concerned authority at bangalore claiming the compensation payable to her. On October 15, 1969, the said application was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore sub-Dn. for consideration, who on october 28, 1969 sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur dist. for disposal. On November 3, 1969 the Deputy Commissioner in turn transmitted the application to the Assistant Commissioner, madhugiri.

( 3 ) THAT is not the end of it. The assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri, was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matt















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top