# The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shakarpur, Delhi v. Asghar & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1142 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-03-20 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 67 of 2000 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-shakarpur-delhi-v-asghar-ors-49813 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal - Truck driver murdered during course of employment - Truck Owner acknowledged deceased's employment as driver in police report - Commissioner granted compensation to heirs of deceased truck driver - Insurance company challenged award on grounds of lack of evidence linking death to employment, absence of valid driving license, and non-impleadment of vehicle owner's legal heirs - Held: Murder during employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as per Supreme Court precedent in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd - High Court's jurisdiction u/s 30 limited to substantial questions of law - Commissioner's factual findings not to be disturbed unless perverse - Appeal dismissed. Allowed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES is open for the responding authorities to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with Section 11(1) of the CRPF rules of 1949 Act for determining the punishment, if required in shape of minor penalty only. 10. Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 1142 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 67 of 2000 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shakarpur, Delhi ...Appellant Versus Asghar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Amresh Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Civil Law -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal - Truck driver murdered during course of employment - Truck Owner acknowledged deceased's employment as driver in police report - Commissioner granted compensation to heirs of deceased truck driver - Insurance company challenged award on grounds of lack of evidence linking death to employment, absence of valid driving license, and non-impleadment of vehicle owner's legal heirs - Held: Murder during employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as per Supreme Court precedent in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd - High Court's jurisdiction u/s 30 limited to substantial questions of law - Commissioner's factual findings not to be disturbed unless perverse - Appeal dismissed. Allowed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: 1. Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., LAWS(SC)2000 4 99 2. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt. Sujatha ; Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 dt 2.11.2018 3. Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs Divisional Manager & anr., 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) 4. Mayan Vs Mustafa & anr., 2022 ACJ 524 5. Salim Vs New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. & anr., 2022 ACJ 526 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahr in WC Case No. 6 of 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,16,910/- with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Commissioner on the following substantial questions of law: "A). Whether in absence of any evidence to establish that the death was the result of kidnapping of the alleged vehicle and killing by the kidnappers while the deceased was in the course of employment of the owner of the truck, Court below was justified in allowing the claim petition? 4 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shakarpur, Delhi Vs. Asghar & Ors. 1143 B). Whether in absence of any evidence in respect of the valid driving license held by the deceased at the time of alleged incidence, the Court below was justified in allowing the claim petition? C). Whether the death of the owner of the vehicle during pendency of the claim petition and non-impleadment of his heirs and legal representatives, the appellant company was liable to be absolved of its liability? 3. The deceased-Anwar Ahmad was driver of respondent-owner and was being paid Rs.2000/- per month plus Rs.50/- for daily diet. He was employed at Truck No.HR26A 2045. On 1.2.1997, upon the direction of respondent-owner, the deceased went to Gwaliar from Delhi by plying the loaded truck. On 3.2.1997, during the course of his employment he was murdered and his dead body was found in Agra near Jharna Nala under Atmadpur Police Station. The legal heirs of the deceased was denied compensation by the original respondents and, therefore, they preferred the claim petition which was allowed by the learned Commissioner as above. 4. As far as question No.A is concerned, the said issue is no longer res integra. The answer to this question whether a murder can be said to give rise a case under Workmen's Compensation Act, is covered by judgment of the Apex Court in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, LAWS(SC)2000 4 99. As far as other substantial questions of law are concerned, the commissioner has come to the conclusion that the owner had shown the deceased as driver of the truck while lodging the report before the police station and that is how he has accepted the employment of the deceased. As far as nonjoinder of legal heirs of the owner is concerned, the learned commissioner after hearing the appellant and on considering the objection raised by claimants had rejected the application of the appellantInsurance Company. Be that as it may, all these questions are in the realm of question of facts and the finding of the Commissioner on these issues are not perverse. 5. This Court is fortified in its view by the decision of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018, Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 wherein the Apex Court has held that under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse and unless there is a question of law involved. The decision in Salim vs. New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not permit this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of learned Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 7. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The Registry will forward this order to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner who shall immediately summon the legal heirs of the claimant and disburse the amount kept in fixed deposit with interest accrued on the said amount till date within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. ---------- 1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2023) 4 ILRA 1144 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Writ-A No. 2542 of 2023 Dr. Richa Mishra ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Utsav Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi, Vinayak Saxena Civil Law - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Review of earlier judgment in a subsequent judgment - The petitioner prayed for the judgment dated 29.01.2019 in Writ Petition No. 6785/2018 to be declared per incuriam. Held: The Court held that the said judgment cannot be subjected to review or its validity questioned in the present writ petition. A Bench of any court is bound to follow the decision of another coordinate Bench of equal strength to maintain judicial propriety. The judgment of a Single Judge can only be set aside by a Division Bench in a special appeal or by the Supreme Court in an appeal against the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner's arguments in this regard are rejected. (Paras 26, 27) Civil Law - Service Law - Dispute pertaining to appointment after a lapse of 19 years - Petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge and dispute the appointment for the first time after a lapse of 19 years from the date of respondent no. 6's appointment, or after a substantial length of time following her own appointment in 2013. If the petitioner had been serious about challenging respondent no. 6's appointment as Assistant Professor, she could have done so within a reasonable period after her own appointment in 2013. Having remained a silent spectator, she is deemed to have acquiesced. Petitioner cannot be allowed to contest the initial appointment dispute at her convenience. (Para 23) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: 1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347 (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.) 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Utsav Mishra for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubham Tripathi and the Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the respondents to give charge/appointment to respondent No.6 as Head of Department of Microbiology in Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the SGPGIMS) and further seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor in Department of Microbiology in SGPGIMS on 24.5.2013 and subsequently she was confirmed on the said post. She was further promoted to the post of Associate Professor in Department of Microbiology under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) on 28.12.2016 and further promoted to the next higher post of Additional Professor on 16.3.2020 on which she is presently working.