Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by original respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Jeev Urja Private Limited and its Executive Director Vasant Kulkarni) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nanded in W.C.N.F.A. No.16/2011. The respondent, Smt. Sitabai w/o Madhav @ Vitthal Nilpatrewar, had filed a petition claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. She contended that she was employed as a skilled labourer with the appellant company, earning Rs.100 per day (Rs.3,000 per month), and resided in the factory premises. On 05.09.2010, while inserting raw material into a machine, her saree got caught, crushing her right leg. She was treated at Guru Govindsingh Memorial Government Hospital, Nanded, underwent four operations, and her right leg was permanently disabled from the hip. She alleged that the appellants violated Factory Act rules, leading to the accident. After discharge, she resumed duty but was not paid wages for six months. She lodged a police report and issued a legal notice, which the appellants partly admitted and partly denied. The Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,795 with interest at 12% per annum from one month after the accident till realization. The appellants challenged the award, primarily arguing that the respondent was not their employee. The court examined the evidence, including the legal notice reply (Exh.28) where the appellants admitted the respondent's employment and accident, and the testimony of the respondent's witness (Exh.29). The court held that the burden to prove non-employment was on the appellants, which they failed to discharge. The court also noted that the disability was permanent and total, justifying the compensation amount. The appeal was dismissed, and the award was confirmed. The civil application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Burden of Proof - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Sections 2(1)(n), 3, 4 - The appellants challenged the award of compensation on the ground that the respondent was not their employee. The court held that the burden to prove non-employment lies on the employer, and the respondent had produced sufficient evidence including a legal notice reply and witness testimony to establish the relationship. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-15) B) Workmen's Compensation - Permanent Disability - Assessment of Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 4 - The respondent suffered amputation of her right leg from hip due to a factory accident. The Commissioner assessed 100% loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,795 with 12% interest. The court upheld the award, noting that the disability was permanent and total. (Paras 2-10) C) Workmen's Compensation - Interest - Delay in Payment - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 4A - The court confirmed the award of interest at 12% per annum from one month after the accident until realization, as the employer failed to pay compensation within the statutory period. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants (employers) have successfully challenged the award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, on the ground that the respondent was not their employee?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nanded in W.C.N.F.A. No.16/2011 dated 24.02.2015 is confirmed. Civil Application No.16631 of 2015 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Burden of Proof
- Permanent Disability
- Interest on Compensation
