Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar vs Kamlesh Kumari

FAO-148-2001 (O&M) --1--

221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-148-2001 (O&M)
Decided on:-08.09.2026
Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ....Appellant..
vs.
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr.Abhinandan Sekhri, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 4.
*
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to a decision
dated 30.08.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner Workmen’s
Compensation, Gurdaspur, whereby claim petition under Section 3 read with
Section 19 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred
to as “1923 Act”) preferred at the instance of respondents, was partly
accepted while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.78,824/- alongwith
interest @ 6% from the date of accident till its realization with further
direction to pay penalty @ 3% of the total compensation amount. It was also
directed that in case the amount of compensation is not released within two
months from the date of order, the claimants shall be entitled for interest @
12%.
2. Briefly stating, Harbans Lal-deceased, was working as
SONIKA
2026.09.11 18:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-294-2021 (O&M) --2--
Peon/Chowkidar with the appellant-Department and was drawing salary
@ Rs.1000/- per month. On 05.11.1988, Harbans Lal was unfortunately
killed by militants during the course of his employment. Respondents No.1
to 4/claimants, namely, the widow and three minor children of the deceased-
Harbans Lal, filed an application under Section 3 read with Section 19 of the
1923 Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased-
Harbans Lal during the course of employment. Upon notice,
department/employer as well as Insurance company filed their respective
written statements, in which, employer-department admitted all the contents
of the application, whereas, Insurance Company denied all the charges.
Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether the application is time barred?
2. Whether the applicants have no locus standi for filing
this application?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation. If
so to what amount and from whom.
4. Relief.”
3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner
vide order dated 30.08.2000, allowed the application while awarding the
compensation @ Rs.78,824/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of
accident till its realization with further direction to pay penalty @ 3% of the
total compensation amount. It was also directed that in case the amount of
compensation is not released within two months from the date of order, the
claimants shall be entitled for interest @ 12%. Hence, the present appeal
was preferred at the instance of appellant-employer.
4. Despite having been duly served, no one has appeared on behalf
of the appellant.
SONIKA
2026.09.11 18:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-148-2001 (O&M) --3--
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-claimants
submits that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner being based
on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record, calls
for no interference and as such the present appeal is liable to the dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and gone
through the paper book.
7. In the present case, deceased-Harbans Lal was employed as
Peon/Chowkidar in the Cane Department of the appellant. On 05.11.1988,
he was unfortunately killed by militants, during the course of his
employment, which fact was admitted by the appellant-employer in its
written statement filed on 12.05.1998. Further, the evidence led by the
respondents-claimants with respect to the employment, salary and the age of
the deceased was never rebutted by the appellant in counter to the evidence
led by the respondents-claimants and based on the same the learned
Commissioner awarded the compensation as mentioned above. In such
circumstances, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner to
the effect that the deceased-Harbans Lal being employed as Peon/Chowkidar
in the appellant-department was unfortunately killed by militants on
05.11.1988 during the course of employment needs to be affirmed. It is by
now well settled that strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied in
proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the claimants are
only required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities.
7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mackinnon Machenzie &
Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak,” reported as 1969 (2) SCC 607,
held that the expression ‘arising out of and during the course of
SONIKA
2026.09.11 18:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-294-2021 (O&M) --4--
employment’ must receive a liberal construction so as to advance the object
of the beneficial legislation.
Similarly, in “Param Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd.,” 2013 (3) SCC 409, it was reiterated that where the employment
exposes a workman to a particular risk resulting in his death or injury, such
accident is compensable under the Act.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, as noticed from the grounds
of appeal, has also assailed the impugned award on the ground that the claim
petition was barred by limitation, inasmuch as deceased-Harbans Lal had
died on 05.11.1988, whereas the claim petition came to be filed in the year
1998, i.e. after a considerable delay. Undisputedly, under Section 10 of the
1923 Act, an application for compensation is required to be made within two
years of the occurrence of the accident. However, in the claim petition,
respondents-claimants specifically averred that after the death of Harbans
Lal, they had approached the appellant-employer for grant of compensation,
whereupon they were assured that the compensation would be paid after the
decision in the case relating to Late Darshan Singh, who was also an ex-
employee of the appellant-employer. It was on the basis of such assurance
that the respondents-claimants did not immediately institute the claim
petition and awaited the outcome of the said case and therefore, delay in
filing claim petition was duly explained.
9. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is maintainable only where a substantial
question of law arises. Pure findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner
on appreciation of evidence are ordinarily not liable to be interfered with
unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, no
SONIKA
2026.09.11 18:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

FAO-148-2001 (O&M) --5--
perversity or illegality is found in the findings recorded by the learned
Commissioner. Rather, the findings are fully supported by the oral and
documentary evidence available on record. Consequently, no substantial
question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. The order dated 30.08.2000
passed by the Commissioner, for Workmen’s Compensation, Gurdaspur, is
affirmed.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
08.09.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika
JUDGE
(i)Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes (ii) Whether reportable: Yes
SONIKA
2026.09.11 18:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document