The Tribunal must consider individual circumstances when applying guidelines for fund release under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, rather than adhering to a rigid approach.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Mukherjee for learned advocate Ms.Pathak waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner and Senior Civil Judge, Labour Court 2, Rajkot dated 13.03.2024, in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.7 of 2021, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant-mother of the deceased for premature release of the Fixed Deposit came to be dismissed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Modi for the pertitioner and learned advocate Ms.Pathak for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that son of the applicant died, therefore, order was passed by the Tribunal under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 on 23.03.2023 directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid and the amount was invested in fixed deposit receipt No.0728897 for five years i.e. from 03.04.2023 to 03.04.2028. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that as the applicant is aged more than 60 years and her house which collapsed needed renovation and there was no other place for her shelter, the mother filed an application before the learned labour court praying to release Rs.3,00,000/- out of the amount invested by way of fixed deposit.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that alongwith an application the photographs of the house were also placed before the learned court and as the award has not been challenged by the insurance company and attained the finality, learned court below has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that without considering the basic need in mechanical manner, the learned labour court has dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner is having other major sons and she is receiving the interest on the said fixed deposit on quarterly basis, the amount if released would be spent for other purposes and on that ground the application came to be rejected. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that without considering the age of the mother and the requirement as stated, the learned labour court has passed an order therefore, same is required to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be paid Rs.3,00,000/- out of the amount invested by way of fixed deposit.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Modi has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and others Versus R. Venugopal and others reported in 2012 ACJ 698 and submitted that the discretion is given to the claim Tribunal, to the learned courts not to invest on investment of compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and release even the whole amount after considering the requirement placed before the learned courts. In view of the above submission learned advocate Mr.Modi prays to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2023.

5. On the other hand learned advocate Ms.Pathak submits that as as the insurance company has not challenged the aforesaid order, therefore it would be for the learned court to decide either to release in favour of the petitioner or to invest in the fixed deposit on long term basis therefore, they would be a formal party and no other orders are required to be passed against them.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates and considering the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and others Versus R. Venugopal and others (supra), it is undisputed fact that the amount as directed by the learned court in Workman Compensation (Fatal)Application