Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.S.E.D.C LTD.versusSHRI. HARIDAS SANGRAM GAVHANE
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the award with 12% interest as per statutory provisions and holding that no substantial question of law was raised.
Summary
The appellant, Executive Engineer MSEDCL Ltd., appealed against a compensation award of Rs. 8,61,120 with 12% interest made by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and the Labour Court. The appellant argued that the deceased employee's monthly salary was Rs. 6,000, not Rs. 8,000 as recorded, and contended that the respondents failed to provide evidence of the higher salary, making the interest award excessive. The court held that the employer had special knowledge of the employee's salary and bore the burden of producing salary slips, which it failed to do. Consequently, the court found no error in awarding interest at the statutory rate of 12% per annum. It further observed that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, rendering it inadmissible under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act. The appeal was dismissed, the award was to be drawn, and the pending civil application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether interest at 12% per annum is payable on compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act.
- Whether the appellant is liable for interest despite alleged misstatement of the deceased's salary.
- Whether the appeal is maintainable in the absence of a substantial question of law under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act.
Legislation cited
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 30(1)
Subjects
- workers compensation
- interest
- salary dispute
- appeal jurisdiction
- Employees' Compensation Act
- maintenance of appeal
- compensation award
Judgment
47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
47 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 270 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.S.E.D.C LTD.
VERSUS
SHRI. HARIDAS SANGRAM GAVHANE
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Koregave,
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Saiprasad S. Patil a/w Adv. Ankushraje
Jadhav
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 20.08.2026
PER COURT :
Heard both sides.
2. This appeal is preferred against judgment and award passed by the
learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour
Court, Solapur on 29.07.2017 fixing the compensation at Rs. 8,61,120/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till the
realisation of the compensation amount.
3. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that out of the awarded
compensation amount of Rs. 6,45,842/- has already been paid to the
respondents/claimants and the additional amount of Rs. 2,15,280/- was
deposited before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. A certificate
to that effect issued on 07.10.2017 is placed on record.
1/3
47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the salary of the
deceased was Rs. 6000/- per month, which is wrongly recorded as Rs.
8000/- per month. The lapses are attributable to the respondents. Hence,
the appellant was not liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is
further contended that necessary material particulars were not supplied by
the respondents. No supporting evidence showing monthly salary of Rs.
8000/- per month was produced on record by the respondents. It is
vehemently contended that the quantum arrived at is exorbitant and
arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment
and order. It is submitted that the death of the employee was within
knowledge of the appellant and so was his salary. The delay is caused at the
instance of the appellant in paying the compensation.
6. It has been recorded that deceased Pradipkumar succumbed to the
injuries on 01.12.2013 arising out of and in the course of employment. The
employer employee relationship has not been disputed by the appellant. As
the deceased was employee of the appellant, his monthly salary was within
special knowledge of the appellant. The respondents might not have
produced tangible material to show that the monthly salary was Rs. 8000/-
per month. The appellant was obliged to produce on record relevant salary
slip of the deceased. The respondents cannot be blamed for not adducing
the evidence of monthly salary. I do not find any error of jurisdiction.
7. The factum of death was known to the appellant. It should have
taken prompt steps in paying the compensation. The delay is rightly
attributed to the appellant. I find no mistake in awarding interest at the rate
of 12% as per the statutory provisions.
8. The appellant has not agitated any substantial question of law either
in the appeal memo or during the course of arguments. In the absence of
substantial question of law, appeal cannot be entertained as per Section 30
2/3
47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt
sub Section (1) of Employees Compensation Act. Appeal sans merit. It is
dismissed. Award be drawn accordingly. The amount deposited shall be
disbursed to the respondents with accrued interest.
9. Pending Civil Application is disposed of.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
3/3
Checking your session…