I have taken into consideration the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Vijay Nagesh for the appellant, so also I have taken into consideration the copy of judgment and award dated 13.03.2012, passed by Ex-Officio Commissioner for the workmen compensation Act (Labour Court No.1), Bharuch.
Mr.Vijay Nagesh, learned advocate for the appellant took me through the copy of award and submitted that as a matter of fact, the heirs of the deceased failed to prove that there was master and servant relationship between deceased and the opponent. He further submitted that the respondents-applicants failed to prove that the alleged incident took place during the course of employment. Thirdly, it is submitted that on account of communication gap, the responsible officer of the appellant could not attend the concerned Labour Court and could not adduce the evidence.
I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. In the award itself, it has been submitted that despite several opportunities given to the appellant, who was opponent in the said matter , no evidence was adduced and ultimately, right to adduce evidence by the appellant/opponent was closed. Considering the award, it further transpires that the respondents-applicants through their advocate issued notice to the appellant-opponent prior to the initiation of the proceeding and the notice was also replied by the appellant-original opponent. Mr. Vijay Nagesh, learned advocate for the appellant, tendered a copy of the said reply Exh.40. Considering the reply, no-where it is stated that there was no master and servant relationship between the parties. On the contrary, in the reply to the notice, it is stated that benefits as per the rules and regulation have been given to the dependants of the deceased. It transpires that pursuant to the notice of the Labour Court when the appellant-original-opponent appeared, completely different stand was taken than the the stand, which was taken in reply, Exh.40, to the notice of the respondents-opponent.
In above view of the matter, this Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and the appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed at this stage and accordingly, it stands dismissed. Since, the appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application for Stay loses its survival value and stands dismissed.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish Top