Management Committee vs Manjulata Mansingh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5284 Ori

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 FAO No.60 of 2022
                 Management Committee, Paradeep
                 Port, Paradeep                          ....          Appellant
                                             Mr. Anand Prakash Das, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Manjulata Mansingh and Others           ....       Respondents
                       Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Counsel for Respondents 1, 2 and 3
                                 Mr. A. Mishra, counsel for Respondent No.4

                             CORAM:
                             SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                         ORDER

30.9.2022 Order No.

06. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. A.P. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for claimant - Respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.

3. Present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 24th November, 2021 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.374-D of 2017 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.9,84,453/- including interest has been awarded on account of death of deceased Ranka @ Rankanidhi Mansingh arising out of and in course of his employment as Mazdoor under the Appellant's establishment.

4. While advancing challenge on behalf of the Appellant, it is contended that fixation of salary of the deceased at the higher limit of Rs.8000/- per month is illegal and further, the employment of the deceased under the Appellant is not established.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgment it reveals that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants to prove the death of deceased arising out of and in course of his employment as Mazdoor. In addition to the same, the Mazdoor Identity card, medical documents, the death certificate of the deceased and salary his slips are marked in evidence. Based on all such evidences, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to such injuries sustained to him arising out of and in course of his employment as Mazdoor under the Appellant. No flaw is seen in the approach of the Commissioner concluding as above.

6. The claimants have proved the remuneration of the deceased by adducing the salary slip under Ext.7 as well as through evidence of the co-workers. No evidence was led from the side of the appellant to rebut the same. In view of the prescription of limitation under the EC Act, the Commissioner has capped the monthly remuneration up to Rs.8000/- and accordingly he determined the compensation amount by applying multiplier factor 142.68. Without any illegality seen in the same, the direction of the Commissioner granting the compensation in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs.9,84,453 is confirmed.

7. However, the subsequent orders of the Commissioner imposing further penalty are set aside.

8. In the result the appeal is dismissed. All the interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda