Case Study on Workmen Compensation

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Index finger, Finger, Appeal
  • Pages : 3 (955 words )
  • Download(s) : 2589
  • Published : February 5, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES 
versus 
RAM CHANDER PRADHAN & ANR

Dated: 14 November 2000
Appellant: M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES
Respondent: RAM CHANDER PRADHAN & ANR
Bench: S.N.VARIAVA, S.R.BABU
Judgement: S. N. VARIAVA, J.

ACT: WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
Supreme Court Case

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE
This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th May, 1997 by which the first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Petitioner is a sole proprietary concern. It runs its workshop of shaping steel sheets into various shapes and forms. The 1st Respondent was, at the relevant time, working as a press operator with the Appellant. On 27th January, 1993 while working on a press, the 1st Respondent sustained injuries to his right index finger and thumb. The Appellant rushed the 1st Respondent to the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon (Haryana). The injuries necessitated amputation of 2.5 x 0.5 Cms. of the index finger.

ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act apply to the said establishment.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to pay the respondent the said compensation as per the Act.

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES
Both the parties had put forward their respective arguments. On 14th June, 1993, the 1st Respondent filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest thereon @ 16% per annum. The Appellant in his reply, inter alia, claimed that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act would not apply to his establishment. CASE ANALYSIS

On 15th October 1996 the Commissioner held that the Workmen's Compensation Act applied and that the Appellant was liable to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.29,814/- together with Rs.5,000/- as penalty and interest at 12% per annum. The Appellant preferred an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the High Court of...
tracking img