Bombay High Court
Sudarshan Raosaheb Ghuge And Ors vs The Managing Director, Lokneta ... on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 901-FA-4460-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4460 OF 2016
1. Sudarshan s/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 22 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
2. Anjana d/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 20 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
3. Ranjana d/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 13 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
4. Goardhan s/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 11 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed.
5. Mamta w/o. Raosaheb Ghuge,
Age 37 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Applicants
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Lokneta Baburao Patil
Sahkari Karkhana Angar,
Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.
2. The Secretary,
Lokneta Sarvaseva Sangh,
Laxmi nagar Angar,
Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.
3. Laxman s/o. Govind Ghuge,
Age Major, Occu. Labour Contractor,
R/o. Ghugewadi, Taluka Shirur Kasar,
District Beed. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
2 901-FA-4460-16.odt
...
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for appellants
Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2
Mr. Arvind K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 3
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
This appeal is arising out of the Judgment and order dated
17-10-2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation, Beed, in WMC No. 6 of 2014, rejecting the claim fled
by the appellants herein for compensation under Section 3 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on a death of Ravsaheb Patilba
Ghuge, father of appellants No. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant No.
5 during the course of employment.
2. I have heard respective learned counsels for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as follows :-
The father of appellants No. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant
No. 5 - Ravsaheb Patilba Ghuge, alleged to have in the employment
of sugarcane factory of respondents No. 1 and 2 as a sugarcane
cutter through respondent No. 3, who is the contractor.
It is the case of appellants-claimants that the deceased had
bullock cart and he used to cut sugarcane and supply it to sugar
factory through his bullock cart. On 03-04-2002, the deceased had
cut sugarcane in the agricultural feld of one Mahipati Shiva Mane
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
3 901-FA-4460-16.odt
and took it to the sugar factory, where he unloaded the sugarcane
and took the slips for the next day. The deceased, thereafter, was
missing, and therefore, a missing report was lodged with the police.
Thereupon, criminal complaint under section 364 read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 3 was registered
at Mohal Police Station, District Solapur, on 05-04-2012.
The dead-body of the deceased was found on 06-04-2012 in
the well of one Suryabhan Shinde, near the electronic weighing
machine of the sugar factory. Accordingly, the claim petition was
fled.
The learned commissioner was pleased to reject the same on
the ground that the claimants failed to satisfy the prerequisite of
section 3 of the Act of 1923 namely, that the accident arose out of
the employment. The said Judgment and order is under challenged
in the present appeal.
4. Mr. S. R. Sirsath, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the claimants have established all three prerequisites of
Section 3, namely (i) that there was an accident, (ii) that the
accident arose in the course of employment and (iii) that the
accident arose out of employment.
He further submits that the learned Commissioner has given
unnecessary weightage to the criminal case fled against
respondent No. 3 - contractor, against whom the claimants had
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
4 901-FA-4460-16.odt
suspicion about commission of murder of the deceased because of
illicit relation of respondent No. 3 with appellant No. 5. It is
submitted that, however, in the sessions trial, respondent No. 3 has
already been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to
prove the case against him, thus, there is clear acquittal. Hence,
the impugned Judgment and order is erroneous.
5. Learned counsels appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2
and respondent No. 3 are supporting the Judgment impugned and
pray for rejection of appeal.
6. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have
perused the record and proceedings of the claim petition and also
gone through the Judgment and order dated 17 th October, 2016
impugned in the present appeal. Thereupon, it is revealed that
though in the written statement, respondents No. 1 and 2 employer
have specifcally raised a plea that the deceased was not the
employee of respondents No. 1 and 2, but, he was working through
the respondent No. 3 - contractor, the learned Commissioner did
not answer the same. It is necessary to answer the said issue in
relation to relationship as employer and employee, frst for making
provisions of the Act of 1923 applicable. However, in the present
matter, the learned Commissioner without answering the said issue
considered the claim on merits.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:20:28 :::
5 901-FA-4460-16.odt
7. Further more, learned Commissioner has given much
weightage to fling of the criminal case against respondent No. 3 -
contractor on a complaint lodged by claimants alleging commission
of murder. When the impugned Judgment and order passed, the
sessions trial against respondent No. 3 was pending. However, after
the impugned Judgment and order was passed, the respondent
No. 3 has been acquitted by the Sessions Court. The said fact has
bearing on the present matter in view of the recent Judgments of
this Court and Honourable Supreme Court of India, wherein, it has
been held that 'murder' also comes within the purview of defnition
of 'accident' as defned in the Act of 1923.
8. In view of the above referred fndings recorded, I am of
the considered view that the matter needs to be remitted back to
the learned Commissioner for fresh consideration and a fresh
decision after considering the above referred observations. Hence, I
pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. The frst appeal is partly allowed.
2. The Judgment and order dated 17 th October, 2016
passed by learned Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation, Beed, in WMC No. 6 of 2014, is
hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Commissioner for fresh decision.
6 901-FA-4460-16.odt
3. It is made clear that the Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation, Beed shall take a decision on the
claim petition after hearing both the parties and
after considering observations made in this
Judgment and the provision of law, within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of writ of this
order.
4. Parties are permitted to amend the claim or the
written statement, if so necessary and advised.
5. The frst appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
rrd
