STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANIBEN NAGJIBHAI JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate Writ to quash and set judgment and award dated 30.06.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Amerli in Workmen's Compensation Application No.89 of 1993, wherein the learned Commissioner has allowed the said application filed by the respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.78,824/- towards compensation with 6% interest and Rs.501/- towards costs of the application.

(2.) One Mr.Nagjibhai Nathubhai Jadav was appointed by the petitioner no.2 on the post of peon in the year 1982. Said Nagjibhai fell ill on 27.11.1992 while he was on duty. Thereafter, family members of Mr.Nagjibhai took him to Ahmedabad for medical treatment and was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where he died on 09.12.1992. The respondents herein filed Application No.89 of 1993 before the Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, wherein they contended that Nagjibhai fell ill while performing his duty and as a result he died and therefore, they were entitled for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. The petitioner had filed written statement contending that respondent was a regular class-IV employee in the State service and therefore, he would be governed by the rules and regulations governing the employees of State Government and provisions of Workmen Compensation Act would not be applicable. It was further contended that petitioner had paid all the dues like gratuity, provident fund, family pension, group insurance as admissible under the rules. After hearing both the parties, learned Commissioner allowed the said application filed by the respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.78,824/- towards compensation with 6% interest and Rs.501/- towards costs of the application. Hence, present petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Ms.Shah, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner submitted that deceased was regularly appointed Class-IV employee of the State Government and therefore, his service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (BCSR). It is further submitted that provisions of Workmen Compensation Act were not applicable to the present case. It is also further submitted that respondent no.1 was also given compassionate appointment on the class IV post and was actually working on that post.