Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Shardaben Shantigiri on 13 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1496 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
SHARDABEN SHANTIGIRI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workman's Compensation Act challenging the judgment
and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by learned
Workman's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commissioner") in Workman's
Compensation Fatal Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby learned
Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,51,080/- in favour of original applicant i.e. present
respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
2. It appears from the record that late Mr. Shantigiri
Praggiri was working as daily wage driver in Gujarat
Water Supply and Sewage Board and provided work as
Driver on the basis of availability of work and fund. The
respondents herein filed Workman's Compensation Fatal
Case No. 6 of 2004 against present appellant, for
compensation, on the ground that Mr. Shantigiri Praggiri
passed away on 29.7.2003 due to electrocution, while he
was on duty.
3. Learned Commissioner, after evaluating the
evidence placed on record and after hearing both the
parties, passed impugned judgment and order directing
the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.3,51,080/-
alongwith penalty amounting to Rs.87770/- and interest
@ 9% from the date of accident.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and order passed by learned Commissioner, the
appellant has preferred present Appeal for quashing and
setting a side the impugned judgment and order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
5. On 23.6.2008, when the appeal came up for hearing
before this Court, the Court passed following order:-
"Heard Shri Munshaw, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Mithani, learned counsel for the
respondents.
This Court was not inclined to entertain this appeal
qua all the contentions. However, looking to the
time taken in making the payment, the Appeal
deserves to be admitted on the following
substantial question of law with regard to order of
penalty only. It is hereby clarified unequivocally
that this appeal is admitted only qua question of
penalty. Other questions are not to be entertained.
The substantial question required to examine as to
whether in given facts and circumstances, the
order of penalty was justified?"
6. It appears that this Court admitted present appeal
only qua question of penalty and considered the same as
substantial question of law and other questions were not
entertained by the Court.
7. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued that the workman was not permanent
employee and he was working on daily wage basis. He
has also submitted that learned Commissioner has to
appreciate the fact that the deceased did not pass away
while performing his duties as driver and the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
electrocution had nothing to do with the nature of
employment.
7.1 However, Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the appeal is admitted only
qua the question of liability to pay penalty and therefore,
he is restricted his arguments only qua the said issue.
8. As against that Mr. Mithani, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted the accident occurred in 2003
and after long time present appeal came up for final
hearing. He has submitted that the family members have
lost their sole bread-earner in the accident and the
amount involved in the present appeal is only Rs.87,770/-
qua penalty which is below Rs.1,00,000/-.
9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
10. Though various grounds have been raised in the
memo of appeal, the fact remains that the total amount
involved in the appeal is very small. Considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1496/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
smallness of amount, this Court is of the opinion that the
appeal is not required to be entertained. Accordingly,
only on the ground of smallness of amount with a further
clarification that this may not be considered as precedent
in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident,
the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs. Registry is directed to send the original
record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.
11. The amount deposited by the appellant and lying
before learned Workman's Compensation Commissioner,
Junagadh shall be disbursed in favour of family members
of the deceased after verifying their bank details and
after following due procedure.
12. Pending civil application/s, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted
earlier stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
