MAVJIBHAI KANJIBHAI JUNGIversusLATE SHAMJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI BAROYA SINCE DIED THROUGH LH

     C/FA/2559/2019                               ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2559 of 2019
==========================================================
                 MAVJIBHAI KANJIBHAI JUNGI
                           Versus
LATE SHAMJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI BAROYA SINCE DIED THROUGH LH &
                           ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UTSAV SHAH for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                              Date : 12/06/2026

                                  ORDER
1.    Present First Appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 14.3.2019 passed by the learned Workman
Commissioner, Junagadh in Workman Compensation (F) Case
No.9 of 2018.

2.    Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the
original respondent, residing at Porbandar and owner of
fishing boat namely "Devprayag" having registration no. GJ-
25-MM-2012 and running the business of fishing since
long.The deceased Shamjibhai Govindbhai - husband of
Respondent No.1 herein and father No. 2 to the of 5 in this
appeal was serving as a sailor (Khalashi) in the boat owning
by the appellant with the salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month.
Another person namely Rakesh Parbat Chudashama was
working as a sailor on the said Boat. Likewise the relation
between the deceased and the appellant herein was coming
within the ambit of master and servant in the eyes of law. The
Shamjibhai Govindbhai Baraiya while he was on duty at the



                                  Page 1 of 4
      C/FA/2559/2019                                    ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026




Boat and while he was sleeping with the other sailor, in the
night hours on dated 21.11.2017, he was found missing in the
next day morning and on dated 24.11.2017 in the morning
time, the dead body of Shamjibhai was found from Sea and it
was presumed that the Shamjibhai was died because of fell
down      in    the    late   night     hours,      accordingly      the     police
investigation was launched, postmortem was carried out and
therefore the legal heirs of the deceased Shamjibhai filed
Workman Compensation Case No. 9 of 2018 before the
Labour Court cum Compensation Commissioner Workman,
Junagadh.

2.1    The learned Workman Commissioner vide impugned
order      partly      allowed        the      application      and        granted
compensation of Rs.7,58,240/- to the legal heirs of the
deceased, with 9% interest from the date of application till
realization.

2.2    Against aforesaid order, the appellant respondent is
before this Court.

3.     Heard learned advocate Mr. Utsav Shah appearing for
learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the appellant. Though
served, none appears for the respondents.

4.     Learned advocate Mr. Shah would submit that the
appellant is the owner of the boat and the learned Workman
Commissioner has committed serious error in believing
existence of the employee – employer relationship between
the deceased and the appellant on the ground that the
appellant is owner of the boat and that the deceased died


                                      Page 2 of 4
      C/FA/2559/2019                               ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026




while he was on duty at the boat. He would further submit
that in absence of any specific supporting documentary
evidence establishing the employee – employer relationship,
the learned Workman Commissioner ought not to have
assessed compensation under the Employees’ Compensation
Act and saddled the liability to pay compensation upon the
appellant.       He would further submit that in absence of any
documentary evidence, the learned Workman Commissioner
has committed serious error in believing the income of the
deceased at Rs.8000/- per month.

4.1     Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Shah
prays to allow the First Appeal.

5.      Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the
case and the evidence on record, this Court is not impressed
with the submission of learned advocate Mr. Shah on the
ground that one sailor Mr. Rakesh Parbat was the driver of
the boat and he has not been examined by the appellant to
support his argument that the deceased was not the employee
of the appellant. Against the aforesaid, it is the case of the
appellant that the deceased was sailor in the boat. The FIR,
inquest panchnama and other documentary evidence on
record sufficiently established that when the deceased died
while he was falling from the boat, the boat was anchored at
the seashore. It is Mr. Rakesh Parbat, who as the best piece
of evidence to disclose the actual facts, however, the
appellant failed to lead this evidence.        Rather, the FIR and
other     documentary      evidence     supports     the    case      of     the
deceased.          The burden is shifted upon the appellant to



                                Page 3 of 4
           C/FA/2559/2019                                                           ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026




  disprove the fact that the deceased was not his employee and
  was casual on the boat at the time of his death, and not in
  capacity of sailor. Admittedly, the deceased was on the boat.
  The appellant claims that the deceased was sleeping in the
  boat. The legitimate presumption arise in view of the fact that
  the deceased was on boat at the time of untoward incident. It
  is in these circumstances, heavy burden lies upon the
  employer to disclose aforesaid legitimate presumption, which
  the appellant has failed to disclose.

  6.         Insofar as the submission that the learned Workman
  Commissioner has assessed the income of the deceased on
  higher side, I see no reason to interfere with such finding on
  the ground that the incident took place in 2017 and that time,
  the rate of minimum wage is around Rs.8000/-.

  7.         Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the matter
  and therefore, the First Appeal fails and stands dismissed.
  Notice discharged.

  8.         Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
  the concerned Court forthwith.

  9.         The learned Commissioner is directed to disburse the
  amount of compensation deposited by the appellant to the
  claimants after due verification and identification along with
  interest           and        after         verifying            their        right         to      claim         the
  compensation.

                                                                                                   (J. C. DOSHI,J)
  SHEKHAR P. BARVE

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/06/2026 15:54:42



                                                        Page 4 of 4