Karnataka High Court
Ashok vs M/S Kala Prasad Constructions on 24 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.23246 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O MARUTI DHARMOJI
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O BHAIRIDEV GALLI SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST:BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. KALA PRASAD CONSTRUCTIONS
BUILDING DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS
BY ITS PARTNERS,
1A. SHIVAJI R PATIL
R/AT NO.339, LAXMI GALLI,
ANAGOL, BELGAUM
1B. MAHADEV G PATIL
R/AT NO.339, LAXMI GALLI,
ANAGOL, BELGAUM
1C. ADEVAYYA S BHOSHANNAVAR
AGED MAJOR, OCC:ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR,
R/O SHANTHI SAGAR GALLI,
KANABARAGI, BELGAUM.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE HINDUSTAN LETEX LIMITED FACTORY,
2
KANAGAL NIPPANI, DIST:BELGAUM.
3. M/S. KONKAN (CONCAN) CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
254, RADHA NIVAS, BEACH ROAD,
BAITKAL, KARWAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHREEVATSA S HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1(A & B)
(SRI. DEEPAK S KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1(C)
(SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2) (R3-SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) F THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING THAT THE AWARD DATED
30.04.2013 IN WCA/SR 103/2004 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
WORKMAN COMMISSIONER FOR COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1,
BELGAUM MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE AND MAY KINDLY AWARD
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant filed
under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923 calling in question the legality of the order dated
30.04.2013 passed in WCA/SR No.103/2004 by the
learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-Divison-1, Belgaum.
2. Brief facts are that the claimant-Ashok Maruti
Dharmoji presented a claim petition stating that
respondents No.1(A-C), who are the partners and
employees of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had
taken up a building management work on contract basis,
which was for respondent No.2 and when the claimant was
working in the premises of respondent No.2 through
respondent No.1(A-C), he suffered injuries.
3. Before the learned Commissioner, respondent
No.1 (A, B & C) appeared and filed written statements and
respondent No.2 also filed a separate written statement.
Subsequently, respondent No.3 was impleaded and it has
filed its written statement.
4. During the enquiry, the claimant examined himself
and also a qualified medical practitioner Dr. Satish Patil
as witness and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.
5. Upon consideration of the materials produced
before him, the learned Commissioner answered all the
points for consideration as against the claimant and
dismissed the claim petition.
6. The learned Commissioner in particular has
observed that there is absolutely no material produced by
the claimant to show that he was working for and on
behalf of the respondents and he suffered injuries during
the course of and arising out of the employment.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant contended before me that Ex.P1-
discharge card and Ex.P2-Wound Certificate clearly
showed that the claimant suffered injuries while he was
working in Concan Constructions Company. He submitted
that the learned Commissioner has failed to take into
consideration the said aspect and on account of the same,
he had dismissed the claim petition and therefore, there is
substantial question of law arising in this appeal and
appeal is liable to be allowed.
8. I have also heard the learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
9. Respondent No.1(A-C) filed separate written
statements denying the claim made by the claimant in
regard to the incident resulting in injuries taking place in
the course of and arising out of the employment.
Respondent No.1(C), in particular, stated in his written
statement that he was working as Supervisor under
respondent No.2 and he has completely denied any such
incident taking place at the work place in the premises of
respondent No.2. The only fact that has been admitted
by all the respondents is that respondent No.3 had taken
up construction work in the premises of respondent No.2
for constructing a building.
10. It is no doubt true that the discharge card and
the wound certificate produced by the claimant has an
entry that he had suffered injury and his address was
shown as Sambra C/o Concan Constructions. Similarly, in
Ex.P2-Wound Certificate in the history column, it is stated
that patient was brought by a contractor of Concan
Constructions. There is absolutely no evidence placed on
record to show that the accident resulting in injuries had
taken place while working for respondent No.3 or working
for any of the Contractors in the premises of respondent
No.2. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of
law arising for consideration in this appeal for failure on
the part of the claimant to produce any evidence in
support of his case. Therefore, I hold that there is no
merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
