URJA ENGINEERS PVT LTD Vs. CHANDANBEN MULABHAI KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,has been preferred, impugning the judgment and order dated 23-5-2005 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Godhra in Distribution Application No.10 of 2003.

(2.) At the very outset, Mr.Kunan Naik,learned advocate for M/s.Trivedi and Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is confining the challenge in the appeal to the direction of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner ("the W.C.Commissioner" for short) in the impugned order, declaring the settlement between the appellant-Company and respondent No.1 to be null and void and directing the payment of an additional amount of Rs.36,236/-, over and above the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was agreed upon by the appellant and respondent No.1, by way of settlement.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case as stated in the memorandum of the appeal are that, the appellant was given the work of laying electricity lines at Junagadh by respondent No.2,Gujarat Vidyut Board (as it was then known). For the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid work, one Mr.Devubhai Darbar was engaged by the appellant. The husband of respondent No.1 approached the said Mr. Devubhai Darbar for employment, but looking to his physical condition Mr.Darbar initially refused to do so. As the husband of respondent No.1 made persistent requests, Mr.Devubhai Darbar ultimately engaged him to take care of the material of respondent No.2. It is the case of the appellant that the husband of respondent No.1 was not keeping good health and used to visit the Doctor frequently as he was suffering from chest-pain. On 22-1-1994, the husband of respondent No.1 developed chest-pain after completion of the work, at approximately at 7.0 P.M., and expired. It is the specific case of the appellant that the husband of respondent No.1 did not expire during the course of employment.