UNION OF INDIA Vs. ZAHOORA BEGUM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act has been filed for setting aside the award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ramban (hereinafter referred to as "ALC") on the grounds that ALC has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased Abdul Latig Naik and the income taken is on the very higher side; that respondent has not placed any such document or lead any such evidence with regard to the age and the loss of income to the family, as such, the award, thus, based on wrong assessed income of the deceased is erroneously in law and deserves to be set aside; and that the ALC has again error in applying the multiplier, which has been fixed on the very higher side, as a result of which, exorbitant award for an amount of Rs.6,81,599/- along with Rs.50,000/- as a penalty for delaying the payment of compensation to the respondents without any fault of the appellant, has been passed.

(2.) The facts in brief as projected are that respondents-claimants invoked the jurisdiction of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ramban, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (here-in-after referred to as "Act") for grant of compensation on account of death of Abdul Latief Naik, who was husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants Nos. 2 and 3. It is averred in the claim petition that on 09.06.2010 permanent casual labourer Mohd. Rafiq Sohail son of Ashraf Sohail resident of Amkote, Chambalwas, Banihal was injured during the execution of work and was shifted to Emergency Hospital, Banihal for treatment. The Officer Commanding of 99 RCC C/O 56 APO directed Abdul Latif Naik (deceased) to attend the injured at Emergency Hospital, Banihal. After attending the injured, the authorities took late Abdul Latif Naik (attendant) in their official vehicle and dropped him on National Highway at Nachlana in the late hours and on way to his residence, he fell down in a deep gorge and received multiple serious injuries. On 10.06.2010, he too was shifted to Emergency Hospital, Banihal for treatment, where Doctors declared him as brought dead. The deceased workman was getting Rs.10,000/- per month as wages and was of 28 years old at the time of accident. On account of death of Abdul Latief Naik, respondents-claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakhs.

(3.) Notice came to be issued to the appellant-Union of India whereby it resisted the petition by filing objections. In the objections, it is averred that deceased was not engaged as Labourer at the time of his death. On 9th of June, 2010 Code No. 6714 CP Mazdoor Abdul Latif was deployed at K.M. 185.00 on Jammu-Srinagar Road (N.H-44) for maintenance of work along with other Labourers. After completion of day work, Mazdoor Abdul Latif and other Labourers left work site for their respective homes. However, as per family members of Abdul Latif, he did not reach his home on 09 th June, 2010, and on 10th June, 2010, the family members of the deceased after search found him in a Nallah between Khari Village and his home. The deceased was taken to Banihal Hospital by his family members, where doctors declared him as brought dead. Neither the petitioner nor the death certificate reveals the time of the death. It is contended that moreover, as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of injury or the accident. There is no casual connection between accident and employment. It is further contended that as a Labourer, his monthly income was not more than Rs.4030/- pm. As per school leaving certificate the date of birth of the deceased is 01st March, 1977. Hence, his age was 33 years at the time of occurrence/incident. In the objections, it is also contended that the deceased was not covered under Workmen Compensation Act at the time of incident. The appellant-Union of India refused to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, therefore, claimants-respondents requested to determine the following issues:-