Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Lata Ramchandra Ubale, mother of the deceased Lalit Ramchandra Ubale, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Pune, dated 29th November 2010, dismissing her claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The deceased died in an accident on 13th March 2000 while driving a jeep owned by his father, Respondent No.1 Ramchandra Shankar Ubale. The appellant claimed that the deceased was employed as a driver by his father and was paid Rs.3,000 per month plus Rs.25 daily Bhatta. The Commissioner dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant failed to establish her case under Section 3 of the Act, holding that the deceased was not in the employment of his father. The appellant examined herself, her mother Kamalabai Keshav Karpe, and Respondent No.1, and produced a payment slip at Exhibit 50. The court framed the substantial question of law as whether the Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased was not in the employment of Respondent No.1. The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence of the three witnesses and the payment slip proved the employment, and the Commissioner wrongly rejected it. The court found that the Commissioner's reasoning was erroneous as the relationship of father and son does not bar a contract of employment. The court set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation, directing the Commissioner to decide the application within three months.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employment Relationship - Father and Son - Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The issue was whether a son employed as a driver by his father can be considered a 'workman' under the Act. The court held that the relationship of father and son does not preclude a contract of employment, and the Commissioner erred in rejecting evidence of employment. The case was remanded for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased son was not in the employment of his father (Respondent No.1) and hence the case was not covered under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 29th November 2010 set aside. Application remanded to Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Judge First Labour Court, Pune for fresh consideration on quantum of compensation. Commissioner to decide within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- Employment relationship
- Father and son
- Employer-employee
- Substantial question of law
