Gujarat High Court
Mohabatsinh Balusinh Parmar vs Jamalbhai Abdulbhai Mansuri on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MOHABATSINH BALUSINH PARMAR
Versus
JAMALBHAI ABDULBHAI MANSURI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BC DAVE(245) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the judgment and award dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Ex- officio Commissioner for Wokmen's Compensation, Himmatnagar, (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Commissioner") in Workmen's Compensation Application No.87 of 1996 (Original Number 268 of 1993) whereby Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined learned Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the present appellant.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the present appellant was working as a workman with respondent No.1 at the Tractor bearing registration No. GAD 9850. On 1.4.1991, at about 10.00 p.m., during the course of his duty, an accident has been occurred and with the bunch of grass, his rightly hand has been crushed between the blade of thrasher. The wrist of the right hand and fingers of the right hand were completely crushed in the thresher. Then he was taken to the hospital and doctor has performed the operation on his right hand and has imputed the right hand from wrist. 2.1 In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant herein has filed Workmen's Compensation Application No. 87 of 1996 against the original opponent No.1 and 2. 2.2 The learned Commissioner, after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed the impugned judgment and award rejecting Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined the application of the appellant.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellant-original applicant has filed present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. B.C. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
4. Mr. B.C. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Commissioner is contrary to law, illegal and erroneous. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
4.1 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has agitated before this Court that the application was rejected by learned Commissioner without appreciating Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined the evidence and without considering the relevant fact and therefore, the said findings are erroneous and illegal. He has submitted that there is an infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and thus, the same is to be considered as substantial question of law, as the learned Commissioner has committed a jurisdictional error and therefor, present appeal requires to be heard and the same is maintainable before this Court.
4.2 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant was engaged by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of labour work, at his tractor attached to the thresher. He has submitted that on 1.4.1991, while the appellant was working at the agriculture field of one Gopalsingh Vechatsingh, he sustained injury and lost his right hand. 4.3 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner, without considering the said fact, has rejected the application of Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined the present appellant on the ground that the appellant was not working with the opponent No.1 and therefore, liability of opponent No.2 was also not considered and thereby, the learned Commissioner has committed serious error of law. He has further submitted that the appellant has proved the fact that he was working with opponent No. 1 by placing necessary evidence before the learned Commissioner, however without going through the same, learned Commissioner has rejected the application. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant urges that present appeal may be allowed and compensation may be awarded to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.
5. Mr. Mansuri, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. K.V. Ghadia, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company have submitted that prima facie, the appellant was unable to establish that there was an employer-employee relationship between the appellant and opponent No.1. Learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have supported the findings recorded by learned Commissioner and Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined submitted that present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the relevant material and documents placed on record. I have also examined the record and proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner.
7. It appears from the record that in uncertain terms, the appellant has admitted that he was working with Gopalsingh Vechatsingh, as labourer for agriculture purpose and while he was doing work of cutting wet, at that time he sustained injury on his right hand. It is further admitted by the appellant before the learned Commissioner, at the time of deposition that, he was not engaged by present opponent No.1. Hence, considering the oral evidence of the appellant as well as other documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner has passed the impugned judgment and award and rejected the application of the appellant. The Commissioner has after evaluating the evidence and after going through the Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined relevant material placed before him passed the impugned judgment and award, which in my view, does not deserve any interference by this Court.
8. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer to the provision of 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 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
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."
9. The provision of Section 30 of the Workmen's Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Compensation Act establishes that the High Court cannot interfere in the award passed by the Commissioner unless and until it is satisfied that the substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The statutory provision restricts the interference of the High Court. However, considering the fact and the limitation to entertain present appeal, more particularly Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, only the circumstance which is enumerated under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, High Court can interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner. In present appeal, it appears that no substantial question is involved.
10. In view of the above facts, present appeal stands disposed of. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
11. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:15:23 IST 2025