Jagadish @ Jadagish Naidu @ vs Parwati W/O.Late Kanakappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12343 Kant

                              -1-




                                        MFA No. 21463 of 2013

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                           BEFORE
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21463 OF 2013 (WC-)
BETWEEN:

JAGADISH @ JADAGISH NAIDU @
JAGADI KUMAR, P S/O. BUDDAPPA
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR AND PROPRIETOR
M/S. DHRUVA ASSOCIATES,
#NO. 25/A, HMT MAIN ROAD,
MATHIKERE, GOKUL POST, BANGALORE-54

                                                  ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM R HATTARAKIHAL, ADV., &
SRI. S. C. HIREMATH, ADV.,)
AND:

1.    PARWATI W/O.LATE KANAKAPPA CHITTANAL
      AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: COOLIE
      R/O. NAGALAPUR VILLAGE,
      LINGASAGAUR TALUK, DIST: RAICHUR,
      AND ALSO R/O. TALUVAGERA VILLAGE,
      KUSHTAGI TALUK, DIST: KOPPAL

2.    THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER (M),
      NO. 1, WATER SUPPLY SUB DN. (N)
      18 CROSS, MALLESHAWARAM,
      BWSSB, BANGALORE - 55.

3.    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
      NO. 1, WATER SUPPLY SUB DN. (N),
      18 CROSS, MALLESHAWARAM,
                               -2-




                                      MFA No. 21463 of 2013

      BWSSB, BANGALORE-55
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R2 & R3;
R1- DISMISSED)
     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMAN AND THE LABOUR OFFICER, KOPPAL, DATED
11.04.2012 PASSED IN W.C.No.119/2009 AND DISMISS THE
CLAIM PETITION OF THE CLAIMANTS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the contractor and principal

employer challenging the liability fastened upon him to pay

the compensation determined by the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and the Labour Officer, Koppal in

W.C.No.119/2009. It is seen that the appeal was dismissed

as against respondent No.1, who was the claimant. There is

no representation for the appellant. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed as against respondents 2 and 3 also.

Sd/-

JUDGE

YAN