Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi

Decided On : Jan-09-1989

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 30',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 12',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 30',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 35',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 12',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 12'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'N.C. Sharma',
			(int) 1 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 2 => 'Pali',
			(int) 3 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 4 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 5 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 6 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 7 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 8 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 9 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 10 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 11 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 12 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 13 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 14 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 15 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 16 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 17 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 18 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 19 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 20 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 21 => 'Pali',
			(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 24 => 'Chittarsingh',
			(int) 25 => 'AIR 1925',
			(int) 26 => 'Panchanan Mondal v. State',
			(int) 27 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 28 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 29 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 30 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 31 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 32 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 33 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 34 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 35 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 36 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 37 => 'Gyan',
			(int) 38 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 39 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 40 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 41 => 'Parasmal',
			(int) 42 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 43 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 44 => 'Exh',
			(int) 45 => 'Exh',
			(int) 46 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 47 => 'Pali',
			(int) 48 => 'Lila Devi'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
			(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1923',
			(int) 1 => 'May 5, 1987',
			(int) 2 => 'November 29, 1984',
			(int) 3 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 4 => 'that day',
			(int) 5 => 'monthly',
			(int) 6 => '26 years of age',
			(int) 7 => '26 years',
			(int) 8 => '30/- per day',
			(int) 9 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 10 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 11 => 'daily',
			(int) 12 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 13 => 'March 25,1985',
			(int) 14 => '1971',
			(int) 15 => 'daily',
			(int) 16 => '15/-',
			(int) 17 => 'daily',
			(int) 18 => 'monthly',
			(int) 19 => 'May 5, 1987'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M/s. Mehta Printing Industries',
			(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner',
			(int) 2 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 3 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 4 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari.4',
			(int) 5 => 'The Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 6 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 7 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 8 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 9 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 30(1',
			(int) 11 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
			(int) 12 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 13 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 14 => 'Criminal Law Journal',
			(int) 15 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 16 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 17 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 18 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 19 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 20 => 'Bhandari',
			(int) 21 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 24 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 25 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 26 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 27 => 'the Workmen's Compensation'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 1 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 2 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 3 => 'Balkishan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => 'five',
			(int) 2 => '67,167.30',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '303',
			(int) 5 => '15/-'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 per cent'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'first',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'first'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756882',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Mehta Printing Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi',
			'casenote' => 'Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30--Appeal--Subs-tantial question of law--FIR supporting version of appellant that deceased was employee of G ignored--Held, it is substantial question of law and appeal would lie;The version of the appellant with Balkishan was an employee of Gyan Chand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document i.e. the First Information Report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.;(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 12-B engaged for pipe fitting work at instance of S and amount adjusted in amount of S--Matter not examined by Commissioner for want of pleadings--HeId, respondent be allowed to amend his application and appellant be given opportunity to meet such case;Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Ex. D.A. 1 to Ex. D. A. 3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend his application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case.;Appeal Allowed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. 15/-.Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Kewalchand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.S. Udawat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-09',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' N.C. Sharma, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by M/s. Mehta Printing Industries against the judgment dated May 5, 1987 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts in brief are that on November 29, 1984, respondent Lila Devi filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, for grant of compensation on account of the personal loss sustained by her due to the death of her husband Balkishan in the course of his employment with the appellant. It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. The monthly wages of the deceased were stated to be Rs. 900/- and he was 26 years of age at the time of his death.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claim of Lila Devi was contested by the appellant who denied the employment of Balkishan with it. It was pleaded by the appellant that it carried on its cloth printing business in the premises of Sunder Devi which it had taken on rent. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. According to the appellant, Balkishan was in employment under Gyanchand Bhandari and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for any compensation arising on account of his death during the course of his employment under Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed five issues in the case. He came to the conclusion that Balkishan was in employment under the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. On these facts also, it was found that Balkishan was a workman under the appellant. The age of Balkishan at the time of his death was held to be 26 years and his wages were found to be Rs. 30/- per day. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determined the compensation amount at Rs. 67,167.30 and made the same payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum to be calculated from October 6, 1984. M/s. Mehta Printing Industries has come in appeal against the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to establish that Balkishan was a workman in employment under the appellant. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. It was also urged that the respondent herself had produced a certified copy of the first information report lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 and in this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari had mentioned that Balkishan was in his employment on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-and he died while he was working in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that by virtue of first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no appeal lies against any order unless a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and according to him, in the instant case no substantial question of law was involved and, therefore, this appeal was not maintainable. It was also urged that even if it is taken that Balkishan was employed by Gyanchand Bhandari, the latter was a contractor and the principal was the appellant and on account of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the appellant was still liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is true that no appeal lies against any order mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved. However, it is a case in which a material document has been completely ignored by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali. That material document is a first information report which had been lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 itself. It is true that this first information report was not put to Gyanchand Bhandari by the respondent when he was examined on her behalf. However, it cannot be disputed that this certified copy of the first information report was produced by the respondent herself before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on March 25,1985. It has been held in Chittarsingh v. Emperor AIR 1925 All 303, that technically speaking a first information report taken down by a Police Officer amounts to an entry in an official record, stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty and in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, under which such record is kept and, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 35, Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 875, it was held that the accused was entitled to get certified copy of the first information report which was a public document. That being so, the first information report did not require formal proof. In this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari mentioned that he carried on the work of pipe fitting. He had taken a contract from Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries, for fitting pipeline. Balkishan was an employee with him for this work on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Balkishan and Baboo Bharti were working on the pipeline. However, Balkishan did not return and he sent Baboo Bharti to find out about him. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. This first information report goes to show that Balkishan was as a matter of fact in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died. This was an important document to be taken into consideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased Balkishan was an employee directly under the appellant on a monthly salary of Rs. 900/-. No appointment letter was produced. No document or account books were summoned and got produced from the appellant to show the employment of Balkishan with the appellant and payment of wages by him. The respondent herself showed ignorance in her cross-examination if Balkishan was working under Gyan-chand Bhandari. Gyanchand Bhandari was examined, but since he was himself the lodger of the first information report, he conveniently and for his own safety avoided to state the true facts. However, Gyanchand admitted that he had done pipe work at the factory of the appellant. The version of the appellant that Balkishan was an employee of Gyanchand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document, i.e, the first information report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. With regard to the liability of the principal under Section 12 put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent, the counsel for the appellant urged that it was not the case of the respondent that deceased Balkishan was under employment of a contractor who was engaged in a work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that Parasmal has stated in his statement that Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Exh. DA-1 to Exh. DA-3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend her application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case as advanced during the course of arguments and after taking evidence, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should give its findings whether the appellant was a principal or whether he in the course and for the purpose of his trade or business contracted with Gyanchand Bhandari for the execution by the latter of the whole or any part of the work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, dated May 5, 1987, and remand the case to him with the direction that he may allow respondent Lila Devi to amend her application, if she so likes, and then after giving the appellant an opportunity of filing reply thereto, take further evidence in the case and decide whether the case is covered by Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in case he finds this question in the affirmative, to decide the matter in accordance with law.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1990ACJ542; 1989(2)WLN98',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Lila Devi',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756882'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 30',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 12',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 30',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 35',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 12',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 12'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'N.C. Sharma',
		(int) 1 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 2 => 'Pali',
		(int) 3 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 4 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 5 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 6 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 7 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 8 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 9 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 10 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 11 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 12 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 13 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 14 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 15 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 16 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 17 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 18 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 19 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 20 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 21 => 'Pali',
		(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 24 => 'Chittarsingh',
		(int) 25 => 'AIR 1925',
		(int) 26 => 'Panchanan Mondal v. State',
		(int) 27 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 28 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 29 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 30 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 31 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 32 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 33 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 34 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 35 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 36 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 37 => 'Gyan',
		(int) 38 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 39 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 40 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 41 => 'Parasmal',
		(int) 42 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 43 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 44 => 'Exh',
		(int) 45 => 'Exh',
		(int) 46 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 47 => 'Pali',
		(int) 48 => 'Lila Devi'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
		(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1923',
		(int) 1 => 'May 5, 1987',
		(int) 2 => 'November 29, 1984',
		(int) 3 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 4 => 'that day',
		(int) 5 => 'monthly',
		(int) 6 => '26 years of age',
		(int) 7 => '26 years',
		(int) 8 => '30/- per day',
		(int) 9 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 10 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 11 => 'daily',
		(int) 12 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 13 => 'March 25,1985',
		(int) 14 => '1971',
		(int) 15 => 'daily',
		(int) 16 => '15/-',
		(int) 17 => 'daily',
		(int) 18 => 'monthly',
		(int) 19 => 'May 5, 1987'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M/s. Mehta Printing Industries',
		(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner',
		(int) 2 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 3 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 4 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari.4',
		(int) 5 => 'The Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 6 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 7 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 8 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 9 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 30(1',
		(int) 11 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
		(int) 12 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 13 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 14 => 'Criminal Law Journal',
		(int) 15 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 16 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 17 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 18 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 19 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 20 => 'Bhandari',
		(int) 21 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 24 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 25 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 26 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 27 => 'the Workmen's Compensation'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 1 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 2 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 3 => 'Balkishan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => 'five',
		(int) 2 => '67,167.30',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '303',
		(int) 5 => '15/-'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 per cent'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'first',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'first'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756882',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Mehta Printing Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi',
		'casenote' => 'Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30--Appeal--Subs-tantial question of law--FIR supporting version of appellant that deceased was employee of G ignored--Held, it is substantial question of law and appeal would lie;The version of the appellant with Balkishan was an employee of Gyan Chand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document i.e. the First Information Report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.;(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 12-B engaged for pipe fitting work at instance of S and amount adjusted in amount of S--Matter not examined by Commissioner for want of pleadings--HeId, respondent be allowed to amend his application and appellant be given opportunity to meet such case;Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Ex. D.A. 1 to Ex. D. A. 3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend his application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case.;Appeal Allowed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. 15/-.Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Kewalchand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.S. Udawat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-09',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' N.C. Sharma, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by M/s. Mehta Printing Industries against the judgment dated May 5, 1987 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts in brief are that on November 29, 1984, respondent Lila Devi filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, for grant of compensation on account of the personal loss sustained by her due to the death of her husband Balkishan in the course of his employment with the appellant. It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. The monthly wages of the deceased were stated to be Rs. 900/- and he was 26 years of age at the time of his death.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claim of Lila Devi was contested by the appellant who denied the employment of Balkishan with it. It was pleaded by the appellant that it carried on its cloth printing business in the premises of Sunder Devi which it had taken on rent. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. According to the appellant, Balkishan was in employment under Gyanchand Bhandari and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for any compensation arising on account of his death during the course of his employment under Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed five issues in the case. He came to the conclusion that Balkishan was in employment under the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. On these facts also, it was found that Balkishan was a workman under the appellant. The age of Balkishan at the time of his death was held to be 26 years and his wages were found to be Rs. 30/- per day. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determined the compensation amount at Rs. 67,167.30 and made the same payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum to be calculated from October 6, 1984. M/s. Mehta Printing Industries has come in appeal against the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to establish that Balkishan was a workman in employment under the appellant. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. It was also urged that the respondent herself had produced a certified copy of the first information report lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 and in this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari had mentioned that Balkishan was in his employment on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-and he died while he was working in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that by virtue of first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no appeal lies against any order unless a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and according to him, in the instant case no substantial question of law was involved and, therefore, this appeal was not maintainable. It was also urged that even if it is taken that Balkishan was employed by Gyanchand Bhandari, the latter was a contractor and the principal was the appellant and on account of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the appellant was still liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is true that no appeal lies against any order mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved. However, it is a case in which a material document has been completely ignored by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali. That material document is a first information report which had been lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 itself. It is true that this first information report was not put to Gyanchand Bhandari by the respondent when he was examined on her behalf. However, it cannot be disputed that this certified copy of the first information report was produced by the respondent herself before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on March 25,1985. It has been held in Chittarsingh v. Emperor AIR 1925 All 303, that technically speaking a first information report taken down by a Police Officer amounts to an entry in an official record, stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty and in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, under which such record is kept and, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 35, Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 875, it was held that the accused was entitled to get certified copy of the first information report which was a public document. That being so, the first information report did not require formal proof. In this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari mentioned that he carried on the work of pipe fitting. He had taken a contract from Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries, for fitting pipeline. Balkishan was an employee with him for this work on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Balkishan and Baboo Bharti were working on the pipeline. However, Balkishan did not return and he sent Baboo Bharti to find out about him. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. This first information report goes to show that Balkishan was as a matter of fact in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died. This was an important document to be taken into consideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased Balkishan was an employee directly under the appellant on a monthly salary of Rs. 900/-. No appointment letter was produced. No document or account books were summoned and got produced from the appellant to show the employment of Balkishan with the appellant and payment of wages by him. The respondent herself showed ignorance in her cross-examination if Balkishan was working under Gyan-chand Bhandari. Gyanchand Bhandari was examined, but since he was himself the lodger of the first information report, he conveniently and for his own safety avoided to state the true facts. However, Gyanchand admitted that he had done pipe work at the factory of the appellant. The version of the appellant that Balkishan was an employee of Gyanchand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document, i.e, the first information report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. With regard to the liability of the principal under Section 12 put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent, the counsel for the appellant urged that it was not the case of the respondent that deceased Balkishan was under employment of a contractor who was engaged in a work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that Parasmal has stated in his statement that Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Exh. DA-1 to Exh. DA-3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend her application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case as advanced during the course of arguments and after taking evidence, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should give its findings whether the appellant was a principal or whether he in the course and for the purpose of his trade or business contracted with Gyanchand Bhandari for the execution by the latter of the whole or any part of the work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, dated May 5, 1987, and remand the case to him with the direction that he may allow respondent Lila Devi to amend her application, if she so likes, and then after giving the appellant an opportunity of filing reply thereto, take further evidence in the case and decide whether the case is covered by Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in case he finds this question in the affirmative, to decide the matter in accordance with law.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1990ACJ542; 1989(2)WLN98',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Lila Devi',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756882'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 30',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 12',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 30',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 35',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 12',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 12'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'N.C. Sharma',
			(int) 1 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 2 => 'Pali',
			(int) 3 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 4 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 5 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 6 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 7 => 'Lila Devi',
			(int) 8 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 9 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 10 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 11 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 12 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 13 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 14 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 15 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 16 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 17 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 18 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 19 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 20 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 21 => 'Pali',
			(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 24 => 'Chittarsingh',
			(int) 25 => 'AIR 1925',
			(int) 26 => 'Panchanan Mondal v. State',
			(int) 27 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 28 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 29 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 30 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 31 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 32 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 33 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 34 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 35 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 36 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 37 => 'Gyan',
			(int) 38 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 39 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 40 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 41 => 'Parasmal',
			(int) 42 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 43 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 44 => 'Exh',
			(int) 45 => 'Exh',
			(int) 46 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 47 => 'Pali',
			(int) 48 => 'Lila Devi'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
			(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1923',
			(int) 1 => 'May 5, 1987',
			(int) 2 => 'November 29, 1984',
			(int) 3 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 4 => 'that day',
			(int) 5 => 'monthly',
			(int) 6 => '26 years of age',
			(int) 7 => '26 years',
			(int) 8 => '30/- per day',
			(int) 9 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 10 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 11 => 'daily',
			(int) 12 => 'October 6, 1984',
			(int) 13 => 'March 25,1985',
			(int) 14 => '1971',
			(int) 15 => 'daily',
			(int) 16 => '15/-',
			(int) 17 => 'daily',
			(int) 18 => 'monthly',
			(int) 19 => 'May 5, 1987'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M/s. Mehta Printing Industries',
			(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner',
			(int) 2 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 3 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 4 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari.4',
			(int) 5 => 'The Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 6 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 7 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 8 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 9 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 30(1',
			(int) 11 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
			(int) 12 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 13 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 14 => 'Criminal Law Journal',
			(int) 15 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 16 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 17 => 'Baboo Bharti',
			(int) 18 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 19 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 20 => 'Bhandari',
			(int) 21 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
			(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand',
			(int) 24 => 'Sunder Devi',
			(int) 25 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 26 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
			(int) 27 => 'the Workmen's Compensation'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 1 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 2 => 'Balkishan',
			(int) 3 => 'Balkishan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => 'five',
			(int) 2 => '67,167.30',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '303',
			(int) 5 => '15/-'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 per cent'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'first',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'first'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756882',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Mehta Printing Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi',
			'casenote' => 'Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30--Appeal--Subs-tantial question of law--FIR supporting version of appellant that deceased was employee of G ignored--Held, it is substantial question of law and appeal would lie;The version of the appellant with Balkishan was an employee of Gyan Chand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document i.e. the First Information Report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.;(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 12-B engaged for pipe fitting work at instance of S and amount adjusted in amount of S--Matter not examined by Commissioner for want of pleadings--HeId, respondent be allowed to amend his application and appellant be given opportunity to meet such case;Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Ex. D.A. 1 to Ex. D. A. 3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend his application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case.;Appeal Allowed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. 15/-.Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Kewalchand, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.S. Udawat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-09',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' N.C. Sharma, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by M/s. Mehta Printing Industries against the judgment dated May 5, 1987 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts in brief are that on November 29, 1984, respondent Lila Devi filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, for grant of compensation on account of the personal loss sustained by her due to the death of her husband Balkishan in the course of his employment with the appellant. It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. The monthly wages of the deceased were stated to be Rs. 900/- and he was 26 years of age at the time of his death.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claim of Lila Devi was contested by the appellant who denied the employment of Balkishan with it. It was pleaded by the appellant that it carried on its cloth printing business in the premises of Sunder Devi which it had taken on rent. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. According to the appellant, Balkishan was in employment under Gyanchand Bhandari and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for any compensation arising on account of his death during the course of his employment under Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed five issues in the case. He came to the conclusion that Balkishan was in employment under the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. On these facts also, it was found that Balkishan was a workman under the appellant. The age of Balkishan at the time of his death was held to be 26 years and his wages were found to be Rs. 30/- per day. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determined the compensation amount at Rs. 67,167.30 and made the same payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum to be calculated from October 6, 1984. M/s. Mehta Printing Industries has come in appeal against the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to establish that Balkishan was a workman in employment under the appellant. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. It was also urged that the respondent herself had produced a certified copy of the first information report lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 and in this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari had mentioned that Balkishan was in his employment on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-and he died while he was working in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that by virtue of first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no appeal lies against any order unless a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and according to him, in the instant case no substantial question of law was involved and, therefore, this appeal was not maintainable. It was also urged that even if it is taken that Balkishan was employed by Gyanchand Bhandari, the latter was a contractor and the principal was the appellant and on account of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the appellant was still liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is true that no appeal lies against any order mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved. However, it is a case in which a material document has been completely ignored by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali. That material document is a first information report which had been lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 itself. It is true that this first information report was not put to Gyanchand Bhandari by the respondent when he was examined on her behalf. However, it cannot be disputed that this certified copy of the first information report was produced by the respondent herself before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on March 25,1985. It has been held in Chittarsingh v. Emperor AIR 1925 All 303, that technically speaking a first information report taken down by a Police Officer amounts to an entry in an official record, stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty and in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, under which such record is kept and, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 35, Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 875, it was held that the accused was entitled to get certified copy of the first information report which was a public document. That being so, the first information report did not require formal proof. In this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari mentioned that he carried on the work of pipe fitting. He had taken a contract from Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries, for fitting pipeline. Balkishan was an employee with him for this work on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Balkishan and Baboo Bharti were working on the pipeline. However, Balkishan did not return and he sent Baboo Bharti to find out about him. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. This first information report goes to show that Balkishan was as a matter of fact in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died. This was an important document to be taken into consideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased Balkishan was an employee directly under the appellant on a monthly salary of Rs. 900/-. No appointment letter was produced. No document or account books were summoned and got produced from the appellant to show the employment of Balkishan with the appellant and payment of wages by him. The respondent herself showed ignorance in her cross-examination if Balkishan was working under Gyan-chand Bhandari. Gyanchand Bhandari was examined, but since he was himself the lodger of the first information report, he conveniently and for his own safety avoided to state the true facts. However, Gyanchand admitted that he had done pipe work at the factory of the appellant. The version of the appellant that Balkishan was an employee of Gyanchand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document, i.e, the first information report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. With regard to the liability of the principal under Section 12 put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent, the counsel for the appellant urged that it was not the case of the respondent that deceased Balkishan was under employment of a contractor who was engaged in a work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that Parasmal has stated in his statement that Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Exh. DA-1 to Exh. DA-3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend her application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case as advanced during the course of arguments and after taking evidence, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should give its findings whether the appellant was a principal or whether he in the course and for the purpose of his trade or business contracted with Gyanchand Bhandari for the execution by the latter of the whole or any part of the work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, dated May 5, 1987, and remand the case to him with the direction that he may allow respondent Lila Devi to amend her application, if she so likes, and then after giving the appellant an opportunity of filing reply thereto, take further evidence in the case and decide whether the case is covered by Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in case he finds this question in the affirmative, to decide the matter in accordance with law.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1990ACJ542; 1989(2)WLN98',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Lila Devi',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756882'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 30',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 12',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 30',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 35',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 12',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 12'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'N.C. Sharma',
		(int) 1 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 2 => 'Pali',
		(int) 3 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 4 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 5 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 6 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 7 => 'Lila Devi',
		(int) 8 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 9 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 10 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 11 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 12 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 13 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 14 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 15 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 16 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 17 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 18 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 19 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 20 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 21 => 'Pali',
		(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 24 => 'Chittarsingh',
		(int) 25 => 'AIR 1925',
		(int) 26 => 'Panchanan Mondal v. State',
		(int) 27 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 28 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 29 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 30 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 31 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 32 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 33 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 34 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 35 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 36 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 37 => 'Gyan',
		(int) 38 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 39 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 40 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 41 => 'Parasmal',
		(int) 42 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 43 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 44 => 'Exh',
		(int) 45 => 'Exh',
		(int) 46 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 47 => 'Pali',
		(int) 48 => 'Lila Devi'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
		(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1923',
		(int) 1 => 'May 5, 1987',
		(int) 2 => 'November 29, 1984',
		(int) 3 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 4 => 'that day',
		(int) 5 => 'monthly',
		(int) 6 => '26 years of age',
		(int) 7 => '26 years',
		(int) 8 => '30/- per day',
		(int) 9 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 10 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 11 => 'daily',
		(int) 12 => 'October 6, 1984',
		(int) 13 => 'March 25,1985',
		(int) 14 => '1971',
		(int) 15 => 'daily',
		(int) 16 => '15/-',
		(int) 17 => 'daily',
		(int) 18 => 'monthly',
		(int) 19 => 'May 5, 1987'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M/s. Mehta Printing Industries',
		(int) 1 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner',
		(int) 2 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 3 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 4 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari.4',
		(int) 5 => 'The Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 6 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 7 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 8 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 9 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 30(1',
		(int) 11 => 'the Workmen's Compensation Act',
		(int) 12 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 13 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 14 => 'Criminal Law Journal',
		(int) 15 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 16 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 17 => 'Baboo Bharti',
		(int) 18 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 19 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 20 => 'Bhandari',
		(int) 21 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 22 => 'Gyanchand Bhandari',
		(int) 23 => 'Gyanchand',
		(int) 24 => 'Sunder Devi',
		(int) 25 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 26 => 'the Workmen's Compensation',
		(int) 27 => 'the Workmen's Compensation'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 1 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 2 => 'Balkishan',
		(int) 3 => 'Balkishan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => 'five',
		(int) 2 => '67,167.30',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '303',
		(int) 5 => '15/-'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 per cent'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'first',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'first'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756882',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Mehta Printing Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mehta Printing Industries Vs. Lila Devi',
		'casenote' => 'Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30--Appeal--Subs-tantial question of law--FIR supporting version of appellant that deceased was employee of G ignored--Held, it is substantial question of law and appeal would lie;The version of the appellant with Balkishan was an employee of Gyan Chand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document i.e. the First Information Report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.;(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 12-B engaged for pipe fitting work at instance of S and amount adjusted in amount of S--Matter not examined by Commissioner for want of pleadings--HeId, respondent be allowed to amend his application and appellant be given opportunity to meet such case;Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Ex. D.A. 1 to Ex. D. A. 3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend his application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case.;Appeal Allowed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. 15/-.Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Kewalchand, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.S. Udawat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-09',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' N.C. Sharma, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by M/s. Mehta Printing Industries against the judgment dated May 5, 1987 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts in brief are that on November 29, 1984, respondent Lila Devi filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, for grant of compensation on account of the personal loss sustained by her due to the death of her husband Balkishan in the course of his employment with the appellant. It was alleged by Lila Devi that her husband Balkishan was a workman employed by the appellant on October 6, 1984. Balkishan died on that day as he fell in the well during the course of his employment with the appellant as his duty was to maintain the pipe connecting the well. The monthly wages of the deceased were stated to be Rs. 900/- and he was 26 years of age at the time of his death.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claim of Lila Devi was contested by the appellant who denied the employment of Balkishan with it. It was pleaded by the appellant that it carried on its cloth printing business in the premises of Sunder Devi which it had taken on rent. It was alleged that one Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken to repair the pipe fitting connecting the well. This well did not belong to the appellant. According to the appellant, Balkishan was in employment under Gyanchand Bhandari and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for any compensation arising on account of his death during the course of his employment under Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed five issues in the case. He came to the conclusion that Balkishan was in employment under the appellant. It was found that the appellant used the water from the well in the premises of Sunder Devi for his printing business purpose. It was stated that Sunder Devi supplied water to the appellant as part of her trade and the appellant was an agent of Sunder Devi when he got the tube-well repaired through Gyanchand Bhandari. On these facts also, it was found that Balkishan was a workman under the appellant. The age of Balkishan at the time of his death was held to be 26 years and his wages were found to be Rs. 30/- per day. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determined the compensation amount at Rs. 67,167.30 and made the same payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum to be calculated from October 6, 1984. M/s. Mehta Printing Industries has come in appeal against the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to establish that Balkishan was a workman in employment under the appellant. It was contended that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that Balkishan was an employee of the appellant which she has failed to discharge. It was also urged that the respondent herself had produced a certified copy of the first information report lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 and in this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari had mentioned that Balkishan was in his employment on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-and he died while he was working in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that by virtue of first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no appeal lies against any order unless a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and according to him, in the instant case no substantial question of law was involved and, therefore, this appeal was not maintainable. It was also urged that even if it is taken that Balkishan was employed by Gyanchand Bhandari, the latter was a contractor and the principal was the appellant and on account of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the appellant was still liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is true that no appeal lies against any order mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved. However, it is a case in which a material document has been completely ignored by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali. That material document is a first information report which had been lodged by Gyanchand Bhandari on October 6, 1984 itself. It is true that this first information report was not put to Gyanchand Bhandari by the respondent when he was examined on her behalf. However, it cannot be disputed that this certified copy of the first information report was produced by the respondent herself before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on March 25,1985. It has been held in Chittarsingh v. Emperor AIR 1925 All 303, that technically speaking a first information report taken down by a Police Officer amounts to an entry in an official record, stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty and in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, under which such record is kept and, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 35, Evidence Act. In Panchanan Mondal v. State, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 875, it was held that the accused was entitled to get certified copy of the first information report which was a public document. That being so, the first information report did not require formal proof. In this first information report Gyanchand Bhandari mentioned that he carried on the work of pipe fitting. He had taken a contract from Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries, for fitting pipeline. Balkishan was an employee with him for this work on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Balkishan and Baboo Bharti were working on the pipeline. However, Balkishan did not return and he sent Baboo Bharti to find out about him. Baboo Bharti returned and reported to him that Balkishan had fallen down in the well. This first information report goes to show that Balkishan was as a matter of fact in the employment of Gyanchand Bhandari on a daily wage of Rs. 15/-. Gyanchand Bhandari had undertaken a contract with the appellant to repair the pipeline and it was during the course of his employment with Gyanchand Bhandari that Balkishan fell in the well and died. This was an important document to be taken into consideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased Balkishan was an employee directly under the appellant on a monthly salary of Rs. 900/-. No appointment letter was produced. No document or account books were summoned and got produced from the appellant to show the employment of Balkishan with the appellant and payment of wages by him. The respondent herself showed ignorance in her cross-examination if Balkishan was working under Gyan-chand Bhandari. Gyanchand Bhandari was examined, but since he was himself the lodger of the first information report, he conveniently and for his own safety avoided to state the true facts. However, Gyanchand admitted that he had done pipe work at the factory of the appellant. The version of the appellant that Balkishan was an employee of Gyanchand Bhandari amply finds support from the contemporary document, i.e, the first information report. When such an important evidence is ignored a substantial question of law arises and an appeal would lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. With regard to the liability of the principal under Section 12 put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent, the counsel for the appellant urged that it was not the case of the respondent that deceased Balkishan was under employment of a contractor who was engaged in a work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that Parasmal has stated in his statement that Gyanchand had been engaged by him for pipe fitting work at the instance of the owner of the premises, namely, Sunder Devi. He also stated that he had himself made payment of the bills given by Gyanchand Bhandari but the amounts paid of the bills Exh. DA-1 to Exh. DA-3 were adjusted in the account of Sunder Devi. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the reason that there were no pleadings of the respondent on this line, it appears proper that the respondent should be given liberty to suitably amend her application and the appellant should be given an opportunity to meet with such a case as advanced during the course of arguments and after taking evidence, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should give its findings whether the appellant was a principal or whether he in the course and for the purpose of his trade or business contracted with Gyanchand Bhandari for the execution by the latter of the whole or any part of the work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Pali, dated May 5, 1987, and remand the case to him with the direction that he may allow respondent Lila Devi to amend her application, if she so likes, and then after giving the appellant an opportunity of filing reply thereto, take further evidence in the case and decide whether the case is covered by Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in case he finds this question in the affirmative, to decide the matter in accordance with law.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1990ACJ542; 1989(2)WLN98',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Lila Devi',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756882'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 30, Section 12, Section 30, Section 35, Section 12, Section 12

PERSON: N.C. Sharma, Lila Devi, Pali, Balkishan, Lila Devi, Balkishan, Balkishan, Lila Devi, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Balkishan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Pali, Gyanchand Bhandari, Gyanchand Bhandari, Chittarsingh, AIR 1925, Panchanan Mondal v. State, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Balkishan, Gyan, Gyanchand Bhandari, Balkishan, Balkishan, Parasmal, Sunder Devi, Gyanchand Bhandari, Exh, Exh, Gyanchand Bhandari, Pali, Lila Devi

NORP: J.1

EVENT: the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act

DATE: 1923, May 5, 1987, November 29, 1984, October 6, 1984, that day, monthly, 26 years of age, 26 years, 30/- per day, October 6, 1984, October 6, 1984, daily, October 6, 1984, March 25,1985, 1971, daily, 15/-, daily, monthly, May 5, 1987

ORG: M/s. Mehta Printing Industries, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the Workmen's Compensation, Sunder Devi, Gyanchand Bhandari.4, The Workmen's Compensation, Sunder Devi, Sunder Devi, Sunder Devi, Gyanchand, Section 30(1, the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Workmen's Compensation, the Workmen's Compensation, Criminal Law Journal, Baboo Bharti, Baboo Bharti, Baboo Bharti, Gyanchand Bhandari, the Workmen's Compensation, Bhandari, Gyanchand, Gyanchand Bhandari, Gyanchand, Sunder Devi, the Workmen's Compensation, the Workmen's Compensation, the Workmen's Compensation

GPE: Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan, Balkishan

CARDINAL: one, five, 67,167.30, 1, 303, 15/-

MONEY: 6 per cent

ORDINAL: first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first

WORK_OF_ART: Parasmal, Proprietor of M/s. Mehta Printing Industries