Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Decision, Restores Commissioner’s Order in Workmen Compensation Case: ‘A Possible View’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On September 4, 2023 — In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Gujarat High Court’s decision that had nullified the Commissioner’s award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased employee. The apex court termed the Commissioner’s conclusions as “a possible view,” thereby negating any perversity in the findings.

The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, delivered the verdict on September 4, 2023. The case revolved around the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and the appeal was filed by the mother and wife of the deceased employee, Ramakant Yadav.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to frame any “substantial question of law,” as required by Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. “The act governing the present dispute has been amended, by which the word ‘workmen’ has been substituted by ‘employees’,” the bench noted.

The Court also emphasized that the Workmen Compensation Act is a social welfare legislation and should be given a beneficial construction. “It is well-established that the Act is a social welfare legislation and, therefore, it must be given a beneficial construction,” the judgement read.

The Commissioner had originally awarded ₹3,94,120 as compensation, 9% interest, and a 50% penalty amounting to ₹1,97,060 against the employer. The High Court had set aside this order, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Commissioner’s order has been restored, and the amount will become payable to the claimants forthwith. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.

 Date of Decision:  04 September 2023

FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/04-Sep-2023_Fullmati_Vs_New_India_Assurance.pdf"]

Latest Legal News