Gujarat High Court

Ganeshbhai Chotelal Godiya vs Samvit Buildcare Privae Limited on 22 July, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/FA/3202/2009                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3202 of 2009


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                      ================================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                      ================================================================
                                            GANESHBHAI CHOTELAL GODIYA
                                                       Versus
                                        SAMVIT BUILDCARE PRIVAE LIMITED & ANR.
                      ================================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MAITRI P PATEL(8126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                      MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                      ================================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
                              PRACHCHHAK

                                                          Date : 22/07/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original claimant

against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2009 passed by

the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at

Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 45 of 2004,

whereby the learned Commissioner has rejected the

application filed by the appellant.

2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that, the

appellant was working as plumber-pipe fitter with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

respondent No.1 Company and for that, the respondent No.1

Company was paying Rs.190/- per day. It is the case of the

appellant that, on 29.11.2003, when the appellant was working

on the 4th floor at the site of respondent No.1 at Krishna

Society, at about 11.30 a.m., the Palakh which was constructed

for carrying the work broke down and the appellant fall down

from the 4th floor and sustained serious injuries and fracture

and was admitted in V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. It is further the

case of the appellant that, he was required to be operated and

and therefore, he was required to stay in hospital for several

days, for which, expenses of Rs.25,000/- was incurred. That,

due to the said accident, the appellant sustained permanent

disability and also suffered future loss of income. Therefore,

the appellant had filed above referred W.C. application

claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent

No.1 Company before the Workmen's Compensation

Commissioner, which came to be rejected vide judgment and

award dated 30.06.2009.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid

judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, the

appellant - original claimant has filed the present First Appeal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensations Act, 1923.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Maitri Patel, appearing for

the appellant - original claimant, learned advocate Mr.

Nikhilesh Shah, appearing for the respondent No.1 - Company

and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai, appearing for the

respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Patel has submitted that the

impugned judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is

required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that

the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in

deciding the issue no.1 in negative by holding that there was

no employer-employee relationship at the time of the accident,

however, the employer - respondent No.1 herein was paying to

the appellant, who was working as a plumber with the

respondent no.1 and had also issued payment voucher to the

appellant and all the necessary documents were produced by

the appellant on record vide Exh.-30 to 32, which clearly

demonstrate that there existed employer-employee

relationship at the time of accident. She has further submitted

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

that the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in

deciding the issue no.2 in negative by holding that the

appellant did not suffer the injuries while he was on service

with the respondent No.1. She has submitted that the

appellant had sustained serious injuries as he fell down from

the 4th floor while he was on duty and was admitted to V.S.

Hospital and the same fact was deposed in the examination-in-

chief, however, the learned Commissioner has totally ignored

the same and wrongly held that the appellant did not sustain

injuries during the course of employment. Over and above the

grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned advocate Ms.

Patel has urged that the present appeal be allowed and

impugned judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner be quashed and set aside.

6. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Desai, for the

respondent No.2 Insurance Company, has submitted that the

appellant has failed to establish the employer-employee

relationship as well as the injuries sustained by him during the

course of his employment and there was no documentary

evidence produced by the appellant before the learned

Commissioner. She has submitted that even there was no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

evidence with regard to the fact that on the day of accident,

during the course of his employment, he had sustained injuries

because of the accident, because no such accident was

reported to the concerned police station and thus, after

considering all the relevant aspects, the learned Commissioner

has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and

rejected the application filed by the appellant and there is no

any infirmity or any illegality committed by the learned

Commissioner and therefore, the present appeal is required to

be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I

have also considered the impugned judgment and award

passed by the learned Commissioner and the paper-book

supplied by the appellant. On perusal of the same, I do not find

any infirmity or any illegality committed by the learned

Commissioner while rejecting the application filed by the

appellant. Moreover, there is no substantial question of law

involved in the present appeal and even there is no

jurisdictional error committed by the learned Commissioner

while passing the impugned judgment and ward. After

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

considering all the relevant aspects and after going through

the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the

learned Commissioner, the learned Commissioner has decided

the issue no.1 as discussed in para-11 of the impugned

judgment while rejecting the application filed by the appellant.

Considering all these aspects, the present appeal deserves to

be dismissed.

7.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to 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 agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3202/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

undefined

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.