Shivjee Prasad vs Steel Authority Of India Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 937 Jhar

                                             1


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                   ----

M. A. No. 559 of 2015

----

Shivjee Prasad, son of late Hiralal Prasad, residing at Sector II/D, Qtr. No.2-035, P.O. and PS -Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... Appellant

-- Versus --

1.Steel Authority of India Limited, through its Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Administrative Building, P.O. and P.S. B.S.City, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)

2.Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Bokaro Unit, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Appellants :- Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

----

11/27.02.2023 Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant/claimant and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents/Steel Authority of India Limited.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.09.2015

passed by the learned Presiding Officer cum Commissioner under Workmen

Compensation Act in W.C.Case No.02 of 2011 on behalf of the

claimant/appellant for enhancement of the awarded mount.

Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant

submits that the appellant/claimant is an employee under the Steel Authority

of India Limited and posted in the industry of the respondent and on

11.2.2006 while discharging his duties suffered partial permanent disablement

to the extent of 40%. He was 37 years of age and having a monthly salary of

Rs.12,325/- and therefore, he had prayed for compensation of Rs.9,47,250/-.

He further submits that 40% injury is there in right hand of the

claimant/appellant. He submits that the Commissioner under the said Act has

awarded a sum to the tune of Rs.1,84,454/- and out of that, Rs.1,73,797/-

has already been paid by the respondents and accordingly, the difference

amount of Rs.10,657/- was directed to be paid to the appellant/claimant. On

this ground, he submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered about

the loss of the appellant/claimant as he has received 40% injury in his right

hand.

On the other hand, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondents submits that for the period of treatment, the

salary has been released in favour of the appellant/ claimant and considering

the injury on the same salary the appellant/ claimant was engaged in another

department on the same salary. He submits that in that view of the matter,

no loss has caused to the appellant/ claimant. He further submits that the

differential amount of Rs.10,657/- has already been paid by the respondents

to the appellant/ claimant.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,

the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Labour Court under

the Workmen Compensation Act and finds that the learned Tribunal has dealt

with the entire aspect of the matter and had come to the conclusion that the

appellant/claimant is entitled for sum of Rs.1,84,454/- and out of that,

Rs.1,73,797/- has already been paid by the respondents and accordingly, the

Tribunal has directed to pay Rs.10,657/- of the difference amount to the

appellant/ claimant which has already been released in favour of the

appellant/ claimant and the same was not denied by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant/ claimant. It is well settled that if for the

period of treatment and subsequently the engagement has been made in

another department and the salary is being paid, no loss has been occurred

to the appellant/ claimant. There is no illegality in the Award.

Moreover, it appears that there is no substantial question of law

required to be decided in view of section 30 of the said Act.

Accordingly, M.A. No. 559 of 2015 is dismissed.

Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed.

Let L.C.R be sent back to the learned Labour Court, Bokaro forthwith.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/;