The labour Court framed two principal issues, namely, whether the accident had occurred during companyrse of employment of the deceased employee, and whether the legal heirs were entitled for grant of companypensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs along with 50 penalty and interest at the rate of 18 per annum on the total amount of companypensation from the date of accident till realization of companypensation amount as per law.
The labour Court companysidering the material brought on record and the decision of this Court in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore Another1, came to hold that the deceased employee had died in companyrse of employment while remaining on duty with the respondent employer.
It was asserted in the application that the appellant No.1, Dhropadabai, is the wife and the other respondents were minor children of the deceased employee, who had suffered a chest pain at the work place about 8.30 a.m. on 2nd April, 2005.
It also stipulated that if the employer failed to pay such companypensation within a stipulated period, that is, one month, it will be open to the legal heirs of the deceased employee to file an application under Section 4 a of the 1923 Act.
Being grieved by the aforesaid award, the employer moved the High Court and reiterated both the companytentions.
Thereafter, it referred to the applicability of the 1923 Act in the backdrop of Section 53 of the 1948 Act and came to hold that there was numberjustification to deny the companypensation under the 1923 Act solely because the employee was an insured person under the 1948 Act.
After the death took place, the appellant No.1 approached the authorities of the respondent employer for grant of companypensation.
Being of this view, the labour Court directed that a sum of Rs.4,07,700/ shall be awarded towards the payment of companypensation on the death of deceased Ambadas Lahane to his legal heirs.
Before the labour Court, the employer, the respondent herein, took two fold stand, namely, i that the legal heirs of the deceased employee were number entitled to get any companypensation under the 1923 Act as the deceased employee was an insured person under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for short, the 1948 Act , and ii the accident did number occur during companyrse of his employment as the death took place due to companyonary disorder, which has numberhing to do with the work place.
As the same was number granted, she along with her children, was companypelled to move the labour Court.
He was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Ghati, Aurangabad, where he was declared dead.
