Smt. Mala Singh vs Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 16561 MP

                                                                       1
                                     IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                       ON THE 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                      REVIEW PETITION No. 1238 of 2022

                                    BETWEEN:-
                                    SMT. MALA SINGH W/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH,
                                    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PANDENATOLA NEAR HAZARI
                                    CHOURAHA REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                    (BY SHRI K.N. PETHIA - ADVOCATE)

                                    AND
                                    1.    DIRECTOR   PUBLIC HEALTH                   SERVICES
                                          VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL                 (MADHYA
                                          PRADESH)

                                    2.    DEAN SHYAM SAHAY MEDICAL COLLEGE, REWA
                                          DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    3.    SUPERINTENDENT SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL
                                          HOSPITAL REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                    (BY SHRI BRAJENDRA KUSHWAHA - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)

                                          This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                    following:
                                                                        ORDER

This is a review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in M.A. No.959/2013.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in the present case Signature Not Verified SAN the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of Workmen Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2022.12.20 11:41:55 IST Compensation Act, 1923 has been dismissed by this Court.

3. It is contended by learned counsel that this Court fell in error while not appreciating the fact that it was the burden upon the Management to prove that the injury was not caused while the workmen was on duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in the Miscellaneous Appeal, a judgment was filed along with I.A.No.9425/2013, in the case of Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father Vs. National Insurance Company and Ors. reported in F.L.R. 2013 (136) 848 which has not been considered by the Court. Thus, the counsel submits that the order passed by this Court be recalled.

4. To deal with the petitioner contentions, first it is appropriate to refer

to the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Param Pal Singh (supra), in the said case the deceased was working as Driver. There were averments in the statement of claim to the effect that the deceased was done to death on account of stress and strain, while driving the truck continuously over a period of time, which is evident from perusal of paragraph no. 3 of the judgment in the case of Param Pal Singh (supra). Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, the Apex Court concluded in paragraph 28 that in the course of driving the deceased felt uncomfortable and thereafter, he parked the vehicle at the side of the road and later on breathed his last.

5. In the present case, this Court while dealing with the averments made in the statement of claim by the present appellant, observed in paragraph 10 of the order that there was no averment by the petitioner to the extent that the injury was caused, as a result of work stress or strain, or on account of such

Signature Not Verified SAN work or strain the health of the deceased was deteriorated. In absence of such

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY an averment, the petitioner was not entitled for any claim and the same was Date: 2022.12.20 11:41:55 IST

declined by the Labour Court, vide order dated 29.11.2020. The Labour Court

further considered the testimony of the present petitioner and even in the testimony, there were no assertions to the effect that there was work stress on account of which the health of deceased employee was deteriorated and as result of the same he died.

6. Thus, the judgment of the Apex Court in Param Pal Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since, the petitioner himself could not discharge the initial burden that the injury sustained by the deceased employee was as a result of, work stress and strain, accordingly, there is no substance, in the present review petition. Other averments which have not been pressed, though find mention in the review petition, reflect failure on the part of the petitioner, to point out any error which is apparent on the face of the record.

7. In absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, the powers of review cannot be invoked.

8. Resultantly, the present review petition, being sans substance, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Nitesh

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2022.12.20 11:41:55 IST