Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Parmar vs Lhs Of Late Prakash Manubhai Rathod on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4443 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI BHIMJIBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
LHS OF LATE PRAKASH MANUBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VANRAJSINH M DAMORE(3787) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award dated
24.10.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner under
the Workmen's Compensation Act in Workman
Compensation (Fatal) Case No.09 of 2014, whereby the
present petitioner, along with respondent No.2, has been
directed to pay an amount of ₹8,82,882/- towards
compensation, along with interest at the rate of 12%
from 07.05.2014, costs of ₹5,001/-, and all other benefits
arising due to the death of the deceased workman.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and
respondent Nos.1, 3, and 4 are relatives, and that
respondent No.2 is the original owner who had engaged
the petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 3, and 4 for the
construction of a self-financed primary school. The
deceased workman, namely Prakash Manubhai Rathod,
was engaged by the petitioners for centring work and
was being paid daily wages of ₹300/-. It is further the
case of the petitioners that on 07.04.2014, while the said
workman was on duty as a helper, the elevation and lintel
of a window collapsed and fell on him, which resulted in
his death. The legal heirs of the deceased Prakashbhai
Rathod thereafter filed an application under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming an amount of
₹8,00,000/-, which came to be allowed in their favour.,
which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Damore for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Damore submits that the present
petitioners were also workmen engaged in labour work
with the deceased workman. However, the learned
Commissioner has erroneously recorded a finding
contrary to the factual position by holding that the
petitioners were contractors, who had supplied labourers
to respondent No.2, the owner. Learned advocate Mr.
Damore further submits that the work in question was
carried out under the instructions and supervision of
respondent No.2, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be
held liable for payment of compensation. Learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
advocate Mr.Damore submits that the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the
petitioners be exonerated from the liability to pay
compensation as directed by the learned Commissioner.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and the reasons
assigned by the learned Commissioner, it emerges that
Exhibit 77, being the contract executed between
respondent No.2 and the present petitioners for
construction of the school building, was duly produced
before the learned Commissioner. From the cross-
examination of the present petitioners, who were
examined at Exhibit 48, it was admitted that they were
engaged in the business of contracting and had
employed labourers for the construction work.
Furthermore, during the cross-examination of respondent
No.2, it was revealed that payments were made by
respondent No.1 to the present petitioners for the
construction work, which was executed through the
labourers engaged by the petitioners. The payments
were fixed based on different stages of construction. The
contention of the petitioners that they were merely
labourers has been contradicted by their own admission
during cross-examination that they were present at
different construction sites when the incident occurred.
Upon detailed consideration of the evidence, the learned
Commissioner rightly held the petitioners jointly liable
along with respondent No.2 for the payment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
compensation. This Court does not find any material
irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, and
therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
