Gujarat High Court

Mohabatsinh Balusinh Parmar vs Jamalbhai Abdulbhai Mansuri on 23 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/126/2006                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 of 2006


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                       ==========================================================
                                               MOHABATSINH BALUSINH PARMAR
                                                           Versus
                                             JAMALBHAI ABDULBHAI MANSURI & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR BC DAVE(245) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                       MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                         Date : 23/07/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section

30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the

judgment and award dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Ex-

officio Commissioner for Wokmen's Compensation,

Himmatnagar, (hereinafter referred to as the "learned

Commissioner") in Workmen's Compensation Application

No.87 of 1996 (Original Number 268 of 1993) whereby

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

learned Commissioner has rejected the application filed

by the present appellant.

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

present appellant was working as a workman with

respondent No.1 at the Tractor bearing registration No.

GAD 9850. On 1.4.1991, at about 10.00 p.m., during the

course of his duty, an accident has been occurred and

with the bunch of grass, his rightly hand has been

crushed between the blade of thrasher. The wrist of the

right hand and fingers of the right hand were completely

crushed in the thresher. Then he was taken to the

hospital and doctor has performed the operation on his

right hand and has imputed the right hand from wrist.

2.1 In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant herein

has filed Workmen's Compensation Application No. 87 of

1996 against the original opponent No.1 and 2.

2.2 The learned Commissioner, after hearing both the

sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record

has passed the impugned judgment and award rejecting

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

the application of the appellant.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner, the appellant-original applicant has filed

present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. B.C. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant

and Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned counsel for respondent

No.1.

4. Mr. B.C. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed

by learned Commissioner is contrary to law, illegal and

erroneous. He has submitted that the learned

Commissioner has committed an error in passing the

impugned judgment and award.

4.1 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has

agitated before this Court that the application was

rejected by learned Commissioner without appreciating

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

the evidence and without considering the relevant fact

and therefore, the said findings are erroneous and illegal.

He has submitted that there is an infirmity in the

impugned judgment and award passed by the learned

Commissioner and thus, the same is to be considered as

substantial question of law, as the learned Commissioner

has committed a jurisdictional error and therefor, present

appeal requires to be heard and the same is maintainable

before this Court.

4.2 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has

further submitted that the appellant was engaged by the

respondent No.1 for the purpose of labour work, at his

tractor attached to the thresher. He has submitted that

on 1.4.1991, while the appellant was working at the

agriculture field of one Gopalsingh Vechatsingh, he

sustained injury and lost his right hand.

4.3 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the learned Commissioner, without

considering the said fact, has rejected the application of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

the present appellant on the ground that the appellant

was not working with the opponent No.1 and therefore,

liability of opponent No.2 was also not considered and

thereby, the learned Commissioner has committed

serious error of law. He has further submitted that the

appellant has proved the fact that he was working with

opponent No. 1 by placing necessary evidence before the

learned Commissioner, however without going through

the same, learned Commissioner has rejected the

application. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant

urges that present appeal may be allowed and

compensation may be awarded to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.

5. Mr. Mansuri, learned counsel for respondent No.1

and Mr. K.V. Ghadia, learned counsel for respondent

No.2-Insurance Company have submitted that prima

facie, the appellant was unable to establish that there

was an employer-employee relationship between the

appellant and opponent No.1. Learned counsels

appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have supported

the findings recorded by learned Commissioner and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

submitted that present appeal is devoid of any merits and

the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have perused the relevant material and documents

placed on record. I have also examined the record and

proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment

and award passed by the learned Commissioner.

7. It appears from the record that in uncertain terms,

the appellant has admitted that he was working with

Gopalsingh Vechatsingh, as labourer for agriculture

purpose and while he was doing work of cutting wet, at

that time he sustained injury on his right hand. It is

further admitted by the appellant before the learned

Commissioner, at the time of deposition that, he was not

engaged by present opponent No.1. Hence, considering

the oral evidence of the appellant as well as other

documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner has

passed the impugned judgment and award and rejected

the application of the appellant. The Commissioner has

after evaluating the evidence and after going through the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

relevant material placed before him passed the impugned

judgment and award, which in my view, does not deserve

any interference by this Court.

8. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer to the provision

of 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/126/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

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.