Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Shardaben Shantigiri on 13 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1496 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
SHARDABEN SHANTIGIRI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act challenging the judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by learned Workman's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in Workman's Compensation Fatal Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby learned Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,51,080/- in favour of original applicant i.e. present respondents.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Jun 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:32:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined
2. It appears from the record that late Mr. Shantigiri Praggiri was working as daily wage driver in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board and provided work as Driver on the basis of availability of work and fund. The respondents herein filed Workman's Compensation Fatal Case No. 6 of 2004 against present appellant, for compensation, on the ground that Mr. Shantigiri Praggiri passed away on 29.7.2003 due to electrocution, while he was on duty.
3. Learned Commissioner, after evaluating the evidence placed on record and after hearing both the parties, passed impugned judgment and order directing the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.3,51,080/- alongwith penalty amounting to Rs.87770/- and interest @ 9% from the date of accident.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by learned Commissioner, the appellant has preferred present Appeal for quashing and setting a side the impugned judgment and order. Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Jun 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:32:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined
5. On 23.6.2008, when the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, the Court passed following order:-
"Heard Shri Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mithani, learned counsel for the respondents.
This Court was not inclined to entertain this appeal qua all the contentions. However, looking to the time taken in making the payment, the Appeal deserves to be admitted on the following substantial question of law with regard to order of penalty only. It is hereby clarified unequivocally that this appeal is admitted only qua question of penalty. Other questions are not to be entertained. The substantial question required to examine as to whether in given facts and circumstances, the order of penalty was justified?"
6. It appears that this Court admitted present appeal only qua question of penalty and considered the same as substantial question of law and other questions were not entertained by the Court.
7. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the workman was not permanent employee and he was working on daily wage basis. He has also submitted that learned Commissioner has to appreciate the fact that the deceased did not pass away while performing his duties as driver and the case of Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Jun 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:32:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined electrocution had nothing to do with the nature of employment.
7.1 However, Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is admitted only qua the question of liability to pay penalty and therefore, he is restricted his arguments only qua the said issue.
8. As against that Mr. Mithani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted the accident occurred in 2003 and after long time present appeal came up for final hearing. He has submitted that the family members have lost their sole bread-earner in the accident and the amount involved in the present appeal is only Rs.87,770/- qua penalty which is below Rs.1,00,000/-.
9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
10. Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the appeal is very small. Considering the Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Jun 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:32:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined smallness of amount, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal is not required to be entertained. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that this may not be considered as precedent in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the original record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.
11. The amount deposited by the appellant and lying before learned Workman's Compensation Commissioner, Junagadh shall be disbursed in favour of family members of the deceased after verifying their bank details and after following due procedure.
12. Pending civil application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Jun 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 23:32:54 IST 2025