Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Parmar vs Lhs Of Late Prakash Manubhai Rathod on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4443 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI BHIMJIBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
LHS OF LATE PRAKASH MANUBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VANRAJSINH M DAMORE(3787) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.09 of 2014, whereby the present petitioner, along with respondent No.2, has been directed to pay an amount of ₹8,82,882/- towards compensation, along with interest at the rate of 12% from 07.05.2014, costs of ₹5,001/-, and all other benefits arising due to the death of the deceased workman.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 23:02:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 3, and 4 are relatives, and that respondent No.2 is the original owner who had engaged the petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 3, and 4 for the construction of a self-financed primary school. The deceased workman, namely Prakash Manubhai Rathod, was engaged by the petitioners for centring work and was being paid daily wages of ₹300/-. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 07.04.2014, while the said workman was on duty as a helper, the elevation and lintel of a window collapsed and fell on him, which resulted in his death. The legal heirs of the deceased Prakashbhai Rathod thereafter filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming an amount of ₹8,00,000/-, which came to be allowed in their favour., which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Damore for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Damore submits that the present petitioners were also workmen engaged in labour work with the deceased workman. However, the learned Commissioner has erroneously recorded a finding contrary to the factual position by holding that the petitioners were contractors, who had supplied labourers to respondent No.2, the owner. Learned advocate Mr. Damore further submits that the work in question was carried out under the instructions and supervision of respondent No.2, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Learned Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined advocate Mr.Damore submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the petitioners be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation as directed by the learned Commissioner.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the reasons assigned by the learned Commissioner, it emerges that Exhibit 77, being the contract executed between respondent No.2 and the present petitioners for construction of the school building, was duly produced before the learned Commissioner. From the cross- examination of the present petitioners, who were examined at Exhibit 48, it was admitted that they were engaged in the business of contracting and had employed labourers for the construction work. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of respondent No.2, it was revealed that payments were made by respondent No.1 to the present petitioners for the construction work, which was executed through the labourers engaged by the petitioners. The payments were fixed based on different stages of construction. The contention of the petitioners that they were merely labourers has been contradicted by their own admission during cross-examination that they were present at different construction sites when the incident occurred. Upon detailed consideration of the evidence, the learned Commissioner rightly held the petitioners jointly liable along with respondent No.2 for the payment of Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 23:02:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined compensation. This Court does not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 23:02:40 IST 2025