RAJENDRA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point involves in this appeal as to whether the appellant made himself liable to pay penalty in accordance with Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under :

(2.) To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that there was no occasion for the appellant to pay any compensation to the legal representations of the deceasedDevraj Patel who died in the accident and whose relatives have claimed that he was an employee of the appellant/company. It is submitted that the appellant would have been liable to deposit compensation, had the appellant admitted the factum of employment of deceasedDevraj Patel with the appellant. In fact the appellant never accepted him to be their employees and, therefore, the question of payment of any compensation on account of his death to his legal heirs did not arise. Thus, if there was no liability on the appellant to pay compensation, the question of payment of any penalty does not arise.

(3.) It is submitted that the appellant has contested the claim of the legal heirs of the deceasedDevraj Patel who filed compensation petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act because of death of deceasedDevraj Patel in the accident.