Gujarat High Court
Nihar Dineshkumar Trivedi vs Gaurishankar Maganlal Shrimali F/O ... on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2090/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2090 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
NIHAR DINESHKUMAR TRIVEDI
Versus
GAURISHANKAR MAGANLAL SHRIMALI F/O DECD. VASHABEN
SHRIMALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. CHINMAY S. UPADHYAY(13886) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 iof the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the
learned Commissioner under Workman Compensation
Act, Kalol dated 30.12.2024 in the WC Fatal Application
No.2 of 2022 whereby, the application filed below
Exh.20 by the father of the deceased to jopin the
husband of the deceased came to be allowed.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chinmay Upadhyay for the
petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2090/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that the
husband of the deceased did not prefer the application
for joining him as a party and the application was also
not signed by the husband, the father has preferred the
application which was allowed by the learned court
without providing proper opportunity to the present
petitioner to oppose the application. Learned advocate
Mr.Upadhyay submits that the application is preferred
on completion of his chief examination and therefore,
also the application is required to be dismissed. Learned
advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that at the fag end of the
trial the application is preferred therefore, impugned
order deserves to be set aside and the application filed
below Exh.20 is required to be rejected.
3. Considering the submission made by the learned
advocate Mr.Upadhyay and referring the order
impugned before this Court, it transpires that the
proceedings were initiated under the Workman
Compensation Act by the parents of the deceased. At
that stage the husband was not joined, therefore,
application was filed below Exh.20 seeking
implementation of the husband as a party before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2090/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
learned labour court. It also transpires from the record
that present petitioners appeared and has filed the reply
to the application below Exh.23. It was contended before
the learned labour court that the husband does not
require to be joined as a party as he is not necessary
dependent therefore, not proper party and as the father
was having knowledge from the date of filing of the
applications, it was filed at the belated stage.
4. At this stage, this Court has referred section 2(1)(d)
wherein, the expression of dependent is defined, which
includes wife, husband, parents and some other near
relatives. The question of dependency is the question of
facts which is to be established during the course of
adducing the evidence, therefore, at this stage it cannot
be said that the husband is not a necessary and proper
party as he is not dependent of the deceased wife. The
other contention made by the learned advocate
Ms.Parikh is that after completion of the chief
examination of the petitioner, the application is filed for
impledement of the husband as the dependent.
5. This Court is of the view that as till substantial evidence
has not been adduced before the Court and cross
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2090/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
examination of the petitioner, as well as the evidence of
the witnesses are yet to be recorded, therefore, no
prejudice would be caused if the application filed below
Exh.20 is allowed and the husband is joined as a party
before the learned Commissioner.
5.1. This Court is of the view that, that would not cause
harm to the present petitioner in any event. The
objections with regard to the non production of any
evidence to show that the husband is not dependent, can
be produced during the hearing of the main claim.
6. In that view, this Court did not find any infirmity in the
impugned order, therefore petition does not require to
be entertained. It is clarified that observation in the
order is made, limiting to decide the application for
joining the party and it is open for the learned
Commissioner to decide the Fatal Application No.2 of
2022 on its own merits.
7. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
