Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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