STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ARTI ASHOK KAPSHIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the Judgment dated 15th november, 1997 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compens ation Act and Judge, Ist Labour Court, Solapur ordering the compensation and penalty under the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act) for the accident caused to the husband of Respondent no. 1 and the father of Respondent s 2 and 3, on 3rd April, 1985 at the premises of the Appellants and during the course of the employment of the deceased. The deceased was admittedly a sectional Engineer in the Quality Control Department of the appellants at Bhandishegaon, Tal: Pandharpur , Dist: solapur, Maharasht ra. It has been the case of the respondent s, who are the claimant s, that the deceased was working in the Laboratory for testing cement, concrete and mortar blocks. There were 5 labourers, one Lab Assistant and one Chief Lab Assistant working in their laboratory. There was one Sopan Sadhu Darekar who was working under the deceased. He applied for leave to the deceased, which was refused. He therefore hit the deceased with an iron rod. The deceased was injured and he succumbed to his injuries. He was declared dead before admission to the hospital on the same day. The Respondent s claimed compens ation under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the learned Commissioner and Judge.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1, widow of the deceased was given employment on compassionate grounds soon after the incident. She filed the claim on 31st March, 1987. The claim was not adequately stamped and objection was raised as to its stamping on 2nd April, 1987. The claim was correctly stamped on 29 th July, 1987.

(3.) IT is the contention on behalf of the Appellant that the claim has barred by law of limitation since it has not even filed within 2 years of the death as required under Section 10 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is also the claim of the Appellants that the deceased was working for the Supervisory /clerical capacity and hence, he was not a workman under Section 2 (1) (n) (ii) of the Workmen's compens ation Act. It is further their case that since the respondent No. 1 was given appointment on compas sionate grounds the claim cannot be maintained under Section 3 (v) (b) of the Workmen's Compens ation Act. They further contend that since the deceased was murdered the incident does not tantamount to accident and hence, compens ation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not payable. The appellants' further challenge, the penalty imposed upon the appellants for failure to deposit 50% of the claim amount as required under 4a of the Workmen's Compens ation Act. They also contend that the act of murder and the motive for murder or the reasons leading to murder have no bearing upon the employment of the deceased and hence, the act is not in the course of employment consequent upon which the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act are not attracted, since there is no injury by accident to the workman.