N L PATEL Vs. RAJESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-original opponent No. 1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 17-1-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Vadodara in Workmen Compensation (N.F.) Application No. 4 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs. 88,193.16 to the claimant with interest @ 12% per annum and 20% penalty and also costs. Facts in short are that the claimant was a workman working with the appellant company as a Machine Operator on a monthly salary of Rs. 2200/-. On the date of incident i.e. on 2-2-2006, the workman was on duty during night between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., the left hand of the workman accidentally came into the working machine resulting into amputation of his left thumb. The workman therefore filed Workmen Compensation (N.F.) Application No. 4 of 2008 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the impugned award was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, present appeal has been preferred by the original opponent No. 1. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant and have also taken into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence including documents. It is vehemently argued by learned advocate, Mr. Sabir Saiyyad for the appellant that though ample evidence is there on record to show that incident did not take place in factory of the present appellant, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation committed error in holding that the accident took place in the factory of the present appellant. This Court has gone through the judgment and award passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The learned Commissioner has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence in great detail more particularly Exs. 22, 28 and 29. As far as Ex. 28 is concerned, it is a registration form in which Code Nos. 02 and 04 are mentioned which shows that processing job work was going on in the factory. Witness Rathod Rajeshkumar Bhupendrabhai has also stated on oath before the learned Commissioner that incident took place in Hanumant Plastic and as thump of left hand of the claimant came into the machine, amputation of left thumb took place. In view of the above, no error is committed by Commissioner. The Commissioner has also considered birth certificate and 30% disability and applying proper relevant factors, the learned Commissioner has awarded just and adequate compensation and hence also, no error has been committed by learned Commissioner. In view of the above, First Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of appeal, no order in Civil Application No. 5915 of 2013. Registry shall send back the records and proceedings, if any, forthwith. Registry shall also send a copy of this order to concerned Court.