Skip to content


Manubhai Kikabhai and Co. Vs. Babajee Rajaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 248 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Bom267; (1970)72BOMLR311
ActsWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 22, Rule 3; Limitation Act
AppellantManubhai Kikabhai and Co.
RespondentBabajee Rajaram
Advocates:N.N. Rele and ;M.M. Vyas, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....;'there does not appear to be anything in sub-section (7), or for that matter, in any of the provisions of section 38 as such, to indicate that the word 'partition' was used in any special sense, much less in the sense 'to acquire a right or title for the first time' in contradistinction with the redistribution of pre-existing rights or title. on the other hand, the sub-section gives the indication that barring the case of surrenders which is separately dealt with in the act, by the use of the words 'transfer' and 'partition,' the legislature intended to exhaust all the various means by which any person could get a right or title in a legal way.' ;salubai ramachandra v. chandu saju (1965) 68 bom. l.r. 295 : s.c., [1966] mh. l.j. 289, overruled. deepak v. m.r.j. (1964) special civil..........rejected the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the application for bringing the opponent on record was not made within the period of limitation prescribed.2. in the submission of mr. rele for the petitioners, the application for bringing the opponent on record was much after the application had abated and was barred by limitation. the application should have been rejected.3. mr. rele's attempt was to rely upon the provisions in order 22, rule 3, of the code of civil procedure in support of his above submission. the contention was that the original applicant died on september 25, 1967, and the application for bringing the opponent, being the widow of the deceased applicant, on record was made on february 21, 1968. the original application must be held to have abated......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The grievance of the petitioners in this revisional application is that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation wrongly held in favour of the opponent that she was entitled to continue the original application filed for compensation by her deceased husband, and in that connection the Commissioner wrongly rejected the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the application for bringing the opponent on record was not made within the period of limitation prescribed.

2. In the submission of Mr. Rele for the petitioners, the application for bringing the opponent on record was much after the application had abated and was barred by limitation. The application should have been rejected.

3. Mr. Rele's attempt was to rely upon the provisions in Order 22, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his above submission. The contention was that the original applicant died on September 25, 1967, and the application for bringing the opponent, being the widow of the deceased applicant, on record was made on February 21, 1968. The original application must be held to have abated. The present application for bringing the opponent on record was made on February 21, 1668, and was beyond the time prescribed.

4. In connection with these submissions, I repeatedly requested Mr. Rele to point out provisions in the Workmen's Compensation Act providing for application of the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to applications for compensation made under the Act. Mr. Rele candidly admitted that these provisions have not been made applicable to such applications, I also requested Mr. Rele to point out how provisions in the Limitation Act are made applicable to applications for compensation made under the above Act. He did not point out any such provision.

5. It must under the above circumstances, be held that there is nothing in law to suggest that applications for compensation under the Act cannot be continued by heirs of deceased applicants. There is no time fixed within which heirs of deceased applicants must come on record to enable them to continue the applications originally filed by deceased applicants. Applications filed under the above Act being for recovery of money must be held to be in respect of rights to debts which survive to heirs of deceased applicants. As the right to the debt was not personal right of the deceased applicant, the opponent as his widow was entitled to continue the original application in her own right. The debt survived to the opponent and was claimable by her. As the debt survived, the application cannot be held to have abated at any date. This is so because the provisions in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not made applicable to applications made under the Act. The Commissioner was, therefore, right in granting the application and ordering the amendment, and in making the order dated December 20 1968.

6. Rule discharged, No order as to costs.

7. Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //