Case Note & Summary
The present First Appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.14 of 2006, whereby the claim application came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased-Ghanshyambhai Naranbhai was employed as a paid driver by the employer-Laljibhai Narsangbhai. The appellants, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, challenged this dismissal. Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera appearing for the appellants submitted that defendant No.1 – Laljibhai Naranbhai, the owner of the car, had in his written statement categorically admitted that the deceased was working as a paid driver on his car and was paid Rs. 4,000/-. She further submitted that the Insurance Company had already paid compensation arising out of the vehicular accident without raising any dispute as to whether the deceased was a driver or otherwise. Despite this, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, without properly considering this aspect and for strained reasons, dismissed the claim application. It was therefore submitted that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration. Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Saksena appearing for the defendant No.2-Insurance Company could not dispute that defendant No. 1, in his written statement, had admitted that the deceased was a paid driver. He also could not dispute that the Insurance Company had paid compensation in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the record, found that the Commissioner had not considered the admission made by the employer in the written statement. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, directing the Commissioner to decide the claim application afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The Court also directed that the Commissioner shall decide the claim application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Admission in Written Statement - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3 - The Commissioner dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased was employed as a paid driver, despite the employer's written statement categorically admitting that the deceased was working as a paid driver on his car and was paid Rs. 4,000/-. The High Court held that the Commissioner ought to have considered this admission and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in dismissing the claim application despite the employer's categorical admission in the written statement that the deceased was employed as a paid driver.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2026, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Surendranagar for fresh consideration. The Commissioner was directed to decide the claim application afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Admission in Written Statement
- Remand for Fresh Consideration
