KARSHANBHAI SHAMALBHAI NAGAR Vs. GANPATBHAI MADHABHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter alia, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27-6-2012, passed below Exh.14 by the Ex Officio Commissioner, Labour Court, Nadiad in Workmen's Compensation (non-fatal) Application No.3 of 2007.

(2.) THE averments in the petition do not contain a proper factual background of the case. However the brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as garnered from the petition are that the impugned order, which has been passed ex parte, is, according to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the respondent workman, aged 22 years, filed an application before the Labour Commissioner which was numbered as Application No.3 of 2007, on 18-11-2005. Notice was issued on 9-3-2007 by Registered Post A.D. but, as per the case of the petitioner, was never received by him. It is stated in the petition that one Gabhrubhai S.Rabari received the notice but the petitioner does not know who he is as,in the words of the petitioner, "there are many persons named Gabhrubhai S.Rabari in the area."

(3.) THE facts of the case as indicated in the impugned order are that the respondent workman preferred an application before the Ex Officio Commissioner, stating that he was working as a skilled worker for operation of machines in the Units', owned by the petitioner, with effect from March 2005, upto the date of accident, at a monthly wage of Rs.4000/-. The Identity Card, Attendance Card and Pay Slips of the respondent workman are available with the petitioner but are not being given to him, in spite of requests. The respondent workman was asked to perform duties of putting big stones into the machine for crushing into smaller pieces. The overflow of the stones fell on the Belt and went into the drums from where it had to be taken out. It is the case of the respondent workman that on 12-5-2005 the respondent workman was told by the petitioner who is his employer, to get into the drum to take out the stones and to straighten the belt. The respondent switched off the machine and went into the drum to do the bidding of the petitioner. At that point of time, there was no electricity. At about 2.30 P.M. while the respondent workman was in the drum doing the work of straightening the belt, the electric supply was restored. The petitioner asked another workman to put on the switch of the machine. As a result thereof, the respondent suffered an accident wherein his left hand and arm, upto his shoulder, was grievously injured. It is the case of the respondent workman that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. The respondent workman was taken to the Hospital and given treatment. It was pleaded by the workman that he has suffered injuries in his left leg and sustained permanent disability of 100%. Before the Labour Court, he produced documentary evidence regarding the treatment taken by him and the FIR lodged by him against the petitioner. The respondent workman claimed an amount of Rs.5,31,288/- under various heads. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record, awarded the claimed amount with 12% interest as well as Rs.2,62,644/- as penalty.