An appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act must demonstrate an error in law or fact to warrant overturning the Commissioner’s award.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – Corporation under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act (hereinafter be referred to as “The Act”) against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act , Vadodara Court No.4 (hereinafter be referred to as “the learned Commissioner”) in Workmen Compensation Application No. 64 of 1997 whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,540/- with penalty of Rs.35,108/- and interest at 12%.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that one Shri Udesinh Padhiyar was an employee of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and recruited in the year 1979 as a Conductor. It is the case of the appellant that Shri Udesinh was on duty on 21.08.1996, due to his own sickness he was not in a position to do work further and dropped at Karjan Bus Station at about 10.00 p.m. and at that relevant point of time, Shri Udesinh was suffering from Malaria. It is also the case of the appellant that Shri Udesinh was fallen down from terrace between 11.00 p.m to 11.25 p.m and thereafter he was hospitalized and expired on

22.08.1996 while he was undergoing treatment.

2.1 The legal heirs of deceased Udesinh preferred aforesaid application before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner, after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, has allowed the application and awarded compensation with penalty and interest.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. The appeal was admitted and the interim relief was granted on condition that the decreetal amount is to be deposited before the concerned learned Commissioner. The said interim relief was confirmed thereafter.

5. Heard Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length and perused the material available on record.

6. Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in awarding the compensation and penalty and interest. He has submitted that the concerned workman (deceased) was relieved from the duty and at the time of accident, he was not on duty and, therefore, the liability fastened upon the appellant which is absolutely illegal, unjust and erroneous. He has submitted that the deceased was serving as conductor joined with corporation w.e.f. 11.11.1979 and while he was on duty on 21.08.1996, he was suffering from Malaria and due to which he was not feeling well and, therefore, he was relieved from the duty and one another conductor was called to join duty for the said trip and the workman was relieved between 10.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. and, thereafter, at 11.30 p.m. the deceased was fallen down from the terrace and died. He has submitted that since the deceased was relieved from the duty, actually he was on duty at the relevant point of time, when he fall down. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in considering the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents, while considering the age of other relevant material. Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel has urged to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award.

7. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error of facts and law in awarding the amount of compensation. He has submitted that the impugned judgment