Gujarat High Court
Ganeshbhai Chotelal Godiya vs Samvit Buildcare Privae Limited on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3202 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
GANESHBHAI CHOTELAL GODIYA
Versus
SAMVIT BUILDCARE PRIVAE LIMITED & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MAITRI P PATEL(8126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original claimant against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 45 of 2004, whereby the learned Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the appellant.
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that, the appellant was working as plumber-pipe fitter with the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined respondent No.1 Company and for that, the respondent No.1 Company was paying Rs.190/- per day. It is the case of the appellant that, on 29.11.2003, when the appellant was working on the 4th floor at the site of respondent No.1 at Krishna Society, at about 11.30 a.m., the Palakh which was constructed for carrying the work broke down and the appellant fall down from the 4th floor and sustained serious injuries and fracture and was admitted in V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. It is further the case of the appellant that, he was required to be operated and and therefore, he was required to stay in hospital for several days, for which, expenses of Rs.25,000/- was incurred. That, due to the said accident, the appellant sustained permanent disability and also suffered future loss of income. Therefore, the appellant had filed above referred W.C. application claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent No.1 Company before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, which came to be rejected vide judgment and award dated 30.06.2009.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellant - original claimant has filed the present First Appeal Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensations Act, 1923.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Maitri Patel, appearing for the appellant - original claimant, learned advocate Mr. Nikhilesh Shah, appearing for the respondent No.1 - Company and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai, appearing for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in deciding the issue no.1 in negative by holding that there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of the accident, however, the employer - respondent No.1 herein was paying to the appellant, who was working as a plumber with the respondent no.1 and had also issued payment voucher to the appellant and all the necessary documents were produced by the appellant on record vide Exh.-30 to 32, which clearly demonstrate that there existed employer-employee relationship at the time of accident. She has further submitted Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined that the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in deciding the issue no.2 in negative by holding that the appellant did not suffer the injuries while he was on service with the respondent No.1. She has submitted that the appellant had sustained serious injuries as he fell down from the 4th floor while he was on duty and was admitted to V.S. Hospital and the same fact was deposed in the examination-in- chief, however, the learned Commissioner has totally ignored the same and wrongly held that the appellant did not sustain injuries during the course of employment. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned advocate Ms. Patel has urged that the present appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner be quashed and set aside.
6. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Desai, for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company, has submitted that the appellant has failed to establish the employer-employee relationship as well as the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment and there was no documentary evidence produced by the appellant before the learned Commissioner. She has submitted that even there was no Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined evidence with regard to the fact that on the day of accident, during the course of his employment, he had sustained injuries because of the accident, because no such accident was reported to the concerned police station and thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and rejected the application filed by the appellant and there is no any infirmity or any illegality committed by the learned Commissioner and therefore, the present appeal is required to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and the paper-book supplied by the appellant. On perusal of the same, I do not find any infirmity or any illegality committed by the learned Commissioner while rejecting the application filed by the appellant. Moreover, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and even there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned judgment and ward. After Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined considering all the relevant aspects and after going through the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the learned Commissioner, the learned Commissioner has decided the issue no.1 as discussed in para-11 of the impugned judgment while rejecting the application filed by the appellant. Considering all these aspects, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under:-
"30. Appeals.--
(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:
(a)an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;(aa)an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;
(b)an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c)an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d)an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or
(e)an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:
Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2)The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(3)The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section."
8. In view of above, the present appeal being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:27:48 IST 2025