Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, filed by the dependents of Ramesh Sukhdeo Sonune, who died in an accident on 27.12.2007. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court at Buldhana, in W.C.A. (F) Case No. 7 of 2008, passed a judgment and order on 19.03.2013, holding the Oriental Insurance Company (appellant) jointly and severally liable along with respondent No. 6, the owner of the vehicle and employer, to pay compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- to the claimants. The Insurance Company appealed to the Bombay High Court, challenging the order to the extent it held them liable. The High Court, on 07.04.2015, condoned the delay and issued notice for final disposal on the substantial question of law regarding the Labour Court's jurisdiction to hold the Insurance Company liable in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. The parties were heard on this question. The Labour Court, in paragraph 20 of its judgment, recorded reasons for holding the Insurance Company liable, including the statement of NA-1 that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 6. The High Court noted that the finding of employer-employee relationship is a finding of fact, and under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the High Court cannot interfere with such a finding unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The Insurance Company did not demonstrate any perversity. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Labour Court's order.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Labour Court's finding that there existed an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle is a finding of fact. In an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, the High Court cannot interfere with such a finding unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The Insurance Company failed to demonstrate any perversity. (Paras 3-5) B) Workmen's Compensation - Insurance Company Liability - Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Labour Court held the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased workman. The Insurance Company challenged this on the ground of absence of employer-employee relationship. The High Court upheld the liability as the finding of fact regarding the relationship was not shown to be perverse. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hold the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in the absence of any employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court at Buldhana in W.C.A. (F) Case No. 7 of 2008 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30
- substantial question of law
- employer-employee relationship
- binding finding of fact
- insurance company liability
