Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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