Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the award dated 13.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udupi, in WCA/CR-26/2010-F. The Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.4,30,560/- with interest at 12% per annum from 09.12.2008 till the date of deposit to the claimant, Smt. Gauri, the widow of the deceased employee. The deceased was employed as a loader in a goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-20B-2962 owned by the second respondent employer, Chandrakanta Kharvi. The insurance company contended that the deceased was working as a 'Supervisor' and not as a 'workman' under the Act, and therefore the claim was not maintainable. The court heard arguments from both sides and perused the records. The court noted that the Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was a loader, i.e., a manual worker, based on the evidence on record. The court held that the definition of 'workman' under the Act is broad and includes a supervisor who performs manual work. The court found no perversity in the Commissioner's finding and dismissed the appeal, upholding the award. The court also noted that the insurance company had not raised any substantial question of law. The judgment was delivered by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar on 19th November 2024.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Definition of Workman - Supervisor as Workman - The issue was whether a deceased employee designated as 'Supervisor' falls within the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The court held that the term 'workman' includes a supervisor who performs manual work, and the Commissioner's finding that the deceased was a loader (manual worker) was based on evidence and not perverse - The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person working as 'Supervisor' in a goods lorry can be considered a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the purpose of claiming compensation
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 13.11.2012 passed in WCA/CR-26/2010-F by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udupi, is upheld.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act includes supervisor performing manual work
- Employer-employee relationship established by consistent evidence
- Commissioner's findings on facts not to be interfered with lightly
