VARDHMAN CLOTH STORES Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed under section 30 of Workmens Compensation act, challenged the order passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Application No. WCA No. 77 ott998, whereby the learned 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, has allowed the claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,123 to the applicant with other consequential benefits. Mr. Upadhye, learned advocate appearing for the appellants raised sub-stantial question of law in this appeal by contending that while deciding the appli-cation the learned Judge has not considered properly item No. 26 of Schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Entry No. 26 reads thus:

(2.) IT is not disputed that the present appellants are carrying on business in cloth in the name and style as Vardhman Cloth stores. Mr. Upadhye contended that un-less the respondent applicant falls within the entry No. 26 of Schedule II read with section 2 (1) (n) of the Act no order of pay-ment of compensation can be passed. The learned counsel Mr. Upadhye, submitted that the place where the accident occurred is not a warehouse or any other place where goods are stored within the meaning of entry No. 26, Schedule II. He submit-ted that the goods are not stored but are stored in the shelf in the shop. From the evidence that is brought on record, the submission has no substance. It is wholly misconceived. On reading of entry No. 26 it is (clear that it covers other place also where the goods are stored. It is not dis-puted that the appellants are carrying on business in cloth and in that shop the res-pondent was engaged by the appellant. The phrase any other place in entry No. 26 mean the place where the goods are kept, it goes without saying that cloths are stored in the shop for the purpose of sale. It is the case of respondent, while bring-ing heap of cloth from 1st floor he fell down and due to which he sustained the injury. In view of this position, the sub-mission of the learned counsel is without any merit. It is the case of the appellants that the accident occurred not in the pre-mises but it occurred when the respondent fell in a ditch while bringing his bicycle from the shop. This fact has not been accepted by the learned Labour Judge. The learned Labour Judge on appreciation of evidence has negatived the contention that is raised by the present appellant. On ap-preciation of evidence the learned Labour court answered the issue that the accident occurred during the course of employment. This finding is a finding of fact which cannot be gone into by this court in appeal under section 30 of the Act. Mr. Upadhye, learned advocate contended that misread-ing of the evidence if the finding is record-ed, that becomes a substantial question of law. In my judgment this contention cannot be accepted as the finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence that is produced before him and he appreciated evidence in proper perspective. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

(3.) THE first appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.