Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2290
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co..Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Bai – Respondent
MA 3361/2013
Rajendra Puranik,
The absence of specific denial in the written statement undermines claims regarding employment status, affirming the labour Court's award of compensation based on established evidence.
Headnote:(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 22 - Appeal against award - The labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,76,255/- with interest at 12% per annum, finding that the deceased was employed under a contractor who was working for the appellants - The appellants contended that the deceased was not their employee and that the contractor was not awarded any contract by them - The court found no illegality in the labour Court's award, as the evidence supported the deceased's employment under the contractor - The appellants' denial was insufficient as they failed to provide specific averments in their written statement. (Paras 3-10)
(B) Employment and Liability - The court emphasized that the absence of specific denial in the written statement undermines the appellants' claims regarding the employment status of the deceased - The evidence presented established the contractor's relationship with the appellants and the deceased's work under their direction. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the labour Court's award of compensation to the family of deceased Ambika Prasad Ahirwar, who died due to electrocution while working as an electrician/lineman. The appellants argued that the deceased was not their employee and that the contractor was not authorized to work for them.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the labour Court's findings, stating that the evidence supported the deceased's employment under the contractor and that the appellants failed to provide a specific denial of the allegations.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was employed by the appellants and whether the contractor was authorized to work for them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of specific denial in the written statement and the evidence presented supported the labour Court's award, affirming that the contractor's relationship with the appellants was established.
Result: Misc. appeal dismissed.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. Perused the record. 3. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/non-applicants 2-3 (MPEB) challenging award dated 29.06.2013 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compenation, Labour Court, Sagar in case no.25/2008/WCF whereby on the respondents 1-4's application, labour Court has passed an award of Rs.2,76,255/- along with interest @ 12% per annum against the non- applicants 1-3.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased-Ambika Prasad Ahirwar was not under the employment of appellants and the contractor Pradeep Chourasiya under which deceased Ambika Prasad Ahirwar is said to have done the work of electrician/lineman, was not awarded any contract by the appellants. He further submits that labour Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has committed illegality in passing the impugned award. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the misc. appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents 1-4 supports the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the misc. appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. By filing the application under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 it has been specifically alleged that deceased Ambika Prasad Ahirwar was doing work as an electrician/lineman on payment of monthly wages of Rs.3,000/- and Mr. Savarikar, Assistant Engineer of the MPEB allotted the contract to non-applicant 1-Pradeep Chourasiya. It is also alleged in the application that on the instructions of Pradeep Chourasiya, deceased-Ambika Prasad Ahirwar was working on the electricity pole of appellants and due to negligence of Pradeep Chourasia and other defendants/appellants the deceased- Ambika Prasad Ahirwar fell down due to electrocution from the electric pole.
8. Although written statement has been filed by defendants 2-3 (MPEB), but in the entire written statement no specific averment has been made and the written statement of denial of plaint averments for want of knowledge, has been filed.
9. The factum of deceased-Ambika Prasad Ahirwar working under defendant 1-Pradeep Chourasiya and other defendants has been proved by the appellants.
Upon examination of Ajay Kumar Savarikar on behalf of the non-applicant 2 (MPEB), he has also shown ignorance in respect of working of deceased- Ambika Prasad and Contractor-Pradeep Chourasiya. However, on the basis of oral evidence available on record and on the basis of a license of contractorship issued by the defendants 2-3 (MPEB) to the defendant 1- Pradeep Chourasiya for the period 29.09.2011 and 10.02.2012, labour Court has held that Pradeep Chourasiya was contractor of the defendants 2-3 and the deceased-Ambika Prasad Ahirwar was working under the directions of defendant 1-Pradeep Chourasiya and awarded the amount of compensation.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the findings recorded by the labour Court, especially for want of specific denial in the written statement, this Court does not find any illegality in the award passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Sagar.
11. Resultantly, misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
12. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
