1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Workmen’s Compensation Petition No.248 of 1996, the present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/original opponent No.1.
2. In this Appeal, the prayer sought by the appellant/original opponent No.1 reads as under:
“5(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Workmen’s Compensation Petition No.248/1996”.
During the hearing, learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent No.1 submitted that in light of the judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Workmen’s Compensation Petition No.2487/96 it was required to be complied with the said order in which liability and responsibility of all the opponents was jointly and severally as stated in the impugned order. In compliance of the said order, the present appellant/original opponent No.1 has deposited the amount before the concerned court. Clause No. 37 of Tender Agreement between the appellant and the contractor reads as under:
“Clause 37: Compensation under the Workmen’s compensation Act : The contractor shall be responsible for and shall pay any compensation to his workman payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923) (hereinafter called the said Act) for injuries caused to the workmen. If such compensation is paid by Government as principal under sub-section 12 of the said Act, on behalf of the Contractor it shall be recoverable by Government from the Contractor under sub-section (2) of the said section. Such compensation shall be recovered in the manner laid down in clause 1 above.”
Learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent No.1 further submitted that after depositing the amount as referred above under Clause 37 referred above, the same was required to be recovered from the original contractor i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 and in fact the said amount has been recovered by the present appellant/original opponent from the respondents No. 3 and 4. The appellant/original opponent also filed affidavit of Mahesh Arvindlal Gandhi, Dy.Executive Engineer (Irri.) Bhiloda, District Panchayat Sabarkantha dated 30.6.2012 in which he has categorically stated that the total amount of Rs. 4,59,288/- which has been deposited by the appellant towards the award passed by the Labour Court in case Nos. 247/96 and 248/96 has been recovered from the running bill of the contractor whose another work was going on in the name of Asian Construction. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the amount which has been deposited by the present appellant before the Labour Court has already been recovered and nothing remains due and as the grievance of the appellant is redressed, this Appeal does not survive.
3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent and having perused the affidavit filed by the appellant, I am of the view that this Appeal does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. In view of the order passed in the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is also disposed of accordingly.
[G. B. SHAH, J.] msp