CHHATIYA DEVI GOWALIN Vs. RUP LAL SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal arises out of the order dated 7th August, 1976 of tbe Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Patna, appellant no. 1 being the widow and appellant no. 2 the minor son of one Basudev Yadav, an employee under respondent no. 1, Rup Lal Sao.

(2.) The short facts of this case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, lie in a narrow compass. Basudev Yadav above named, was an employee under respondent no. 1, who runs a transport business and who possesses a public carrier bearing no. BRB 1109. The deceased Basudev Yadav worked as Khalasi in the said public carrier and while engaged as such, in course of employment, the said public carrier met within an accident on 24th May, 1971, in which the decased sustained serious injuries resulting in his death at the place of accident is self. Notice as required under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given to the respondents, respondent no 2 being the Insurance Company, stating that at the time of the death, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 150 per month besides an allowance of Rs. 4 per day. Thereafter the two appellants preferred their written claim to the Collector, Gaya, in which they prayed to be allowed a sum of Rs. 3,500 only or any sum or sums which might bo deemed fit and proper by way of compensation under the Act. It appears that the Collector Gaya noticed the two respondents and subsequently when the matter became contested, the petition was referred to the presiding officer Labour Court, Patna, who is also the Commissioner under the Act.

(3.) The claim of the appellants, for compsnsation, was disputed by the two respondents before the presiding officer, Labour Court on various grounds, but it may not be necessary to deal with them in view of the limited contentions raised before this court. In short, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, found that the deceased, Basudev Yadav, was a permanent employee of respondent no. 1, working as khalasi in the public carrier in question and that he died in an accident in course of his employment. The further finding was that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 150 per month under respondent no. 1 at the time of the accident. On these findings, he held the appellant entitled to recover Rs. 35,00, initially from respondent no. 1 and in case of their failure to recover the same from respondent no. 1, they were held entitled to realise the same from respondent no. 2.