MANISH Vs. RADHESHYAM PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employee's Compensation Act, 1923). Being aggrieved by the award dtd. 14/3/2014 passed in Case No.66/WCF/2008 by Labour Cort, Indore. There are two appellants in the case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the case against appellant No.2 Sarika is not tenable in view of the fact that she is not covered under the definition of dependent as provided under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. As such the present appeal is being considered only with respect to appellant No.1 Manish Ajmera.

(3.) Short facts giving rise to the case are that deceased Gopal was in the employment of respondent No.1 Radheyshyam. He was working as a cleaner on the truck of the ownership of respondent No.1 bearing registration No. M.P. 09 K.C. 7963.