Gujarat High Court
Pankaj Rasikbhai Patel vs Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/888/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 888 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PANKAJ RASIKBHAI PATEL
Versus
GUJARAT MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS LTD. & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA FOR MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - workman against the
judgment and order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Ex-
Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Anand in
Workmen's Compensation Case No.7 of 1993, whereby the learned
Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the appellant
herein for compensation.
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under :-
2.1 The appellant - workman was employed by the respondent No.1
herein as Maintenance Helper (Turner) on 17.08.1980. While he was
on duty, he received personal injury by accident arising out of and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/888/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the course of his employment. It is the case of the appellant that,
while he was on duty for maintaining the machinery of the respondent
No.1, an accident took place in the factory on 02.09.1990 and the
appellant received injuries wherein, he lost his right eye completely
and received permanent injury to the left eye having 40% disability
and thus, he was unable to see properly with one eye. That, he was
not able to do the work which he was normally doing before the
accident and therefore, there was 100% disability. It is the case of the
appellant that, the appellant remained in the Hospital as an indoor
patient for 25 days and had taken treated from Dr. Shyamkumar, Eye
Surgeon at Anand. That, the monthly wages of the appellant was Rs.
1800/- at that relevant point of time and was aged 31 years at the
time of accident and therefore, he had claimed compensation of
Rs.2,43,336/- by filing Workmen's Compensation Case being
Workmen's Compensation Case No.7 of 1993, whereby the learned
Commissioner has rejected the said application.
2.2 That, the respondent No.1 - Company had filed its
written statements at Exh.-10 denying all the allegations made
in the application and also stated that they had already deposited
the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.34,637/- calculating
disability @ 30% as per Schedule 1, Item No.26, which was withdrawn
by the appellant.
2.3 That, after considering the pleadings of both the sides, the
learned Commissioner had framed the issues referred in para-3 and
after considering the oral evidence led before the Court, the learned
Commissioner has rejected the application of the appellant - workman
vide its judgment and order dated 26.09.2007.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/888/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellant -
workman has filed the present First Appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensations Act, 1923.
4. Heard learned counsel Mr. U.T. Mishra, appearing for the
appellant - workman, learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, appearing
for the respondent No.1 - Company and learned counsel Mr. Yogi
Gadhia, appearing for the respondent No.2 - New India Assurance
Company Ltd.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted
that the amount paid by the respondents is inadequate and less then
the amount prescribed as per Schedule 1, Item No.25. He has
submitted that the learned Commissioner has completely erred in
dismissing the application without considering the facts and without
considering the settled legal principles. He has submitted that there is
a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Commissioner while
rejecting the application and therefore, it involves substantial
question of law and thus, the present appeal is maintainable and the
same is to be decided on that count. He has further submitted that
the learned Commissioner while deciding the issue No.3-A has
observed that the application was not filed within time and the
application was time barred as per the provisions of the Limitation
Act, which is completely erroneous, illegal and unjust as well as in
issue No.4, the learned Commissioner has committed an error while
considering the disability at 30% instead of 40% as provided under
Schedule 1, Item No.25, and, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/888/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner be quashed
and set aside.
6. As against that, learned counsels Mr. Yogen Pandya and Mr.
Yogi Gadhia, appearing for the respective respondents, have
supported the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner and
contended that the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order as the appellant has not examined the
doctor, who had given certificate with regard to the permanent partial
disablement in nature and thus, the prayer made by the appellant for
enhancement of the amount of compensation is absolutely illegal and
erroneous. It is submitted that the amount considered by the learned
Commissioner as 30% permanent partial disablement was already
deposited by the respondent - Insurance Company and the said
amount was immediately withdraw by the appellant - workman and
thereafter, the present proceedings was filed before this Court for
enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is submitted that the
learned Commissioner after considering the facts while discussing the
issue No.3-A and 4 has specifically observed and discussed in detail
that the application filed by the appellant - workman was time barred
as per the provisions of the Limitation Act and therefore, the learned
Commissioner has rightly rejected the application. It was further
pointed out that if we consider clause No.26 of the Schedule Injury,
the learned Commissioner has rightly considered 30% permanent
partial disablement, as the appellant - workman had immediately
joined the service after getting treatment and till date, he is working
with the respondent Company and therefore, the learned
Commissioner has rightly rejected the application considering all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/888/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
relevant aspects and there is no any illegality or any infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner
and therefore, the learned counsels have urged that no interference is
required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal
be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also
considered the facts of the case, the settled legal principles and the
provisions of Workman's Compensation Act, more particularly Section
30. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and
considering the nature of injury, I am of the opinion that the learned
Commissioner has not committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment and order rejecting the application filed by the
appellant - workman and therefore, the present appeal is required to
be dismissed.
8. In the result, the present appeal being devoid of any merits, is
required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs. Record & Proceedings, if received, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
