Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the Executive Engineer of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) against an order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Hubli, in WCA/F No.32/2011. The Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,940/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition to the respondent, Smt. Parveen Banu, the widow of Mohammed Jafar Peerkhanavar. The deceased was a permanent lineman employed by the appellant. He died while on duty. The claimant filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence, held that the death was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded compensation. The employer appealed under Section 30(1) of the Act. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner's findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the employer failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the death was not due to employment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Death in Course of Employment - Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimant's husband, a permanent lineman, died while on duty; the employer contested the claim on the ground that the death was not due to employment. The Commissioner awarded compensation. The High Court held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, and the employer failed to prove otherwise. (Paras 1-3)
B) Workmen's Compensation - Appeal - Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The employer appealed against the award. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law, as the Commissioner's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband, a permanent lineman, who died while on duty?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding Rs.3,12,940/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30(1)
- Employer's liability
- Death arising out of and in the course of employment
- Permanent employee
- Burden of proof
- Interest rate
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (03) 18
M.F.A. No.24363 of 2013 (WC)
Smt. Sharmila M. Patil (for appellants), Sri. Girish S. Hiremath (for respondent)
Executive Engineer, Electrical O and M Division, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bandiwad Agasi, Hubli (Dharwad) represented by its Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Haveri and another
Smt. Parveen Banu W/o. Mohammed Jafar Peerkhanavar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
Remedy Sought
The appellants (employer) sought to set aside the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation to the respondent (claimant).
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Commissioner's order on the ground that the death of the employee did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Hubli, in WCA/F No.32/2011, awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,940/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition.
Issues
Whether the death of the deceased employee arose out of and in the course of employment?
Whether the Commissioner's award of compensation is sustainable in law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Respondent argued that the deceased died while on duty and the Commissioner's findings are based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The death of a permanent lineman while on duty is presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the employer failed to rebut this presumption. The Commissioner's findings based on evidence are not perverse and do not warrant interference in appeal under Section 30(1).
Judgment Excerpts
In this appeal challenge is to the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2013 made by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Hubli, in WCA/F.No.32/2011, whereby A compensation of Rs.3,12,940/- with 12% interest is awarded.
It is the case of the claimants that, one Mohammed Jafar Peerkhanavar was the husband of Claimant; he was working as a permanent Lineman in ...
Procedural History
The claimant filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Hubli, which was registered as WCA/F No.32/2011. The Commissioner passed an order on 29.05.2013 awarding compensation. The employer filed an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 20.03.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 30(1), Section 3
