1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 05.02.2007 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Nadiad in W.C.C. No.35/1994 whereby, the claim case was allowed and the respondent, original applicant, was awarded compensation of Rs.44,744/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The appellant was imposed penalty to the extent of 20% of the awarded amount, i.e. Rs.8,948.80/- and was also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the original applicant.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent, original applicant, was serving as a Foreman-cum-Carpenter with the appellant-Corporation. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was serving as a casual worker with the appellant-Corporation and was not a regular employee.
2.1 On 02.04.1991 the respondent was directed by the competent authority of the appellant-Corporation to attend some carpentry work at the Balasinor Depot. While doing the said work, the respondent accidentally sustained injury on his left eye. As a result thereof, he lost vision of the left eye. He filed claim case before the learned Commissioner under the W.C. Act claiming total compensation of Rs.1,01,500/-. The said claim case came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. Bhatt learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. SK Mandavia for the appellants contended that the learned authority seriously erred in passing the impugned award since the respondent cannot be termed as a 'workman' under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the respondent was working as a casual worker with the appellants, which is not included in the definition of 'workman' u/s.2(n) of the said Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited v. Ramu Pasi and another, AIR 2006 S.C. 678.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned authority ought not to have imposed the penalty on the appellants in view of the fact that the respondent was never a permanent employee of the appellants and was working as a casual worker. He, therefore, submitted that the learned authority has committed serious error in entertaining the claim case and in passing the impugned award.
4. Mr. Asthavadi learned counsel for the respondent- applicant contended that the documents Exhibits-50 & 53 establish that the respondent was a regular employee of the appellants. He contended that though the appellants had knowledge about the incident and injury sustained by the respondent, no amount as required under the provisions of the said Act was deposited by the appellants. In view of the same, the learned authority was completely justified in passing the impugned award.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. From the documents on record, more particularly, Exhibits – 50 & 53, it appears that the respondent- applicant was issued a daily-rated Card and that the Divisional Controller of the appellant-Corporation has certified that the respondent was working as a Carpenter on daily basis. In the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants there was no evidence to prove that the original applicant therein was a 'workman' under the provisions of the said Act.
6. However, in the instant case, from the documentary evidence on record in the form of Exhibits – 50 & 53, it is established that the respondent was working as a Carpenter with the appellants on daily basis. Hence, the decision relied upon by the appellants shall not apply to the case on hand. In view of the same, the learned authority was completely justified in considering the respondent a 'workman' under the said Act.
6. So far as the issue regarding imposition of penalty is concerned, it is evident from the record that the appellants had knowledge about the incident and the injury sustained by the respondent and in spite of that they did not deposit the amount, as was required under the said Act and therefore, the learned authority imposed the penalty in question. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned authority has not committed any illegality or impropriety warranting interference from this Court in this appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*