PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Jugal Kishor Ray, S/o Late Lakhan Ray – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Prasad Yadav, S/o-Late Badho Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Inspite of valid service of notice none appears on behalf of respondent No.1
2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the judgment/award dated 29.02.2020 passed in E.C. Case No.14 of 2016 by the court of Sri Rajendra Bahadur Pal, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Commissioner, Deoghar under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, whereby and whereunder learned court below has awarded amount of compensation without any interest which is mandatory under Section 4(A) of Workmen’s(Employee’s) Compensation Act, 1923.
3. Factual background of the case in a narrow campus is that one Lakhan Ray(deceased) was employed as driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.JH-17D-9017 attached with Trolley No. JH-11D-9018 owned by respondent No.1-Ashok Prasad Yadav. On 28.01.2009 while Lakhan Ray was employed as driver by the respondent No.1 for transportation of cement and iron rods loaded on trolley and in the course of employment, he met with an accident near Panchsalvey Forest area and died. In this connection, Tisri P.S. Case N
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.