RABHIBEN RAJA Vs. SAGANBHAI NAGNABHAI KHUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned counsel for the petitioners; none for the respondent no.1; Shri Arun Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

(2.) Successors and legal representatives of the workman, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.95 passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner under Workman Compensation and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Workman Compensation Fatal Case No. 66/93, are before this Court with a submission that in accordance with Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, despite their entitlement to get interest and penalty, the learned Court below was absolutely unjustified in not awarding the same in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) It is to be noted that against the said award/order, the petitioners preferred Regular First Appeal with payment of Rs.3100/- as court fees, however, after finding that the appeal under Section 30 of the Act may not be maintainable, they requested the Court for conversion of the matter into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer was allowed on 12.9.96 and the matter came to be registered as Special Civil Application. After going through the entire records available with the Court and after hearing the parties, I am unable to hold that the Court below was unjustified in holding that there was any delay on the pat of the owner/employer or the Insurance Company, specially when the petitioners could not prove by cogent, reliable and clinching evidence that immediately after the death of the workman, the petitioners required owner or the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation. In absence of the evidence in favour of the petitioners, findings recorded by the learned Court below cannot be condemned as perverse. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, a finding recorded by the Court below would not be disturbed or set aside if the finding is reasonable and is a result of one of the possible views.