Workmen S Compensation Act - Judgment Search Results

Asstt. Engineer (Dsd West) RSEB Vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensati ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2(2000)ACC717; 2000(1)WLC102

a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Alternatively the argument is that even if he any rule as to the degree of proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn but the evidence must appeal is allowed and the order of learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhilwara is set aside. The amount deposited with the within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Alternatively the argument is that even if he is treated

Amna Devi Vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar and Anot ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

is included in clause (iii)(b) of Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Now, the question would arise whether the Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent No. 1-Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, of dependent is given in Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? Here, in addition to the other legal heirs dated 9.3.1992, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Hisar Circle, Hisar. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

Mohinder Singh Vs. Commissioner Under Workmen's Compensation Act and O ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: 2(1993)ACC132

itself sufficient cause for not making an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act within the period of limitation. Similarly in Kesoram employment and remained under the belief that his employer would settle his Claim. In Said Ahmad v. North Eastern Railway Lahore writ petition as required under Rule 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and had waited considerably with a hope that his cause for not making an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act within the period of limitation. Similarly in Kesoram Cotton Mills

Param Dev Vs. Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ291HP

of the petitioner was reported to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') amount of compensation. The relevant factor has been provided in Schedule IV and in the present case, as the age of thousand nine hundred forty five only), being half of the compensation amount awarded in favour of the workman shall be recovered above, was for the first time inserted by the Amending Act 8 of 1959 with effect from June 1, 1959, and

Joginder Singh Vs. Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ465J& K

plea of jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He is in appeal to assail the order and harmonious construction in consonance with the spirit and purpose sought to be achieved. Any interpretation that tends to defeat the Appeal arising out of a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act is an extension of such claim and is liable Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or

Ramlal Son of Mohanlal Maraskolhe Vs. the Commissioner Workmen's Compe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1989(59)FLR61]; (1993)IIILLJ33Bom

heir on 12th October 1984 with the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai-her the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai-her younger brother Ramlal, the petitioner - on 12th October 1984 with the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai-her younger accident takes place, is clear from Section 4 of the Act. Not only the amount was neither paid nor deposited within

R.B. Raghunath Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner under Workmen's Compensa ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1960)ILLJ598AP

whether the deceased was a workman as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether the death was the direct cause it would mean that the employment was regular. The award speaks about gaps when the deceased did not attend which would not an employee to justify a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In support of her contention the relies oil In that the illness was due to the negligence or wilful act of the deceased so as to constitute a break in

Ramlal Vs. the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1(1989)ACC296

heir on 12th October 1984 with the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai, an accidental and instantaneous death on 17th May 1983. A sum of Rs. 16,800/- was deposited by way of compensation to within a period of one month but even the interim compensation was not offered. Delay was admitted but the blame was the petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Act on 10th March 1987, claiming the amount, interest and penalty

Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal Advocate Vs. Commissioner under the Workme ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

was the respondent in a claim petition filed by the Workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act seeking for compensation for an petition filed by the Workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act seeking for compensation for an employment injury. The employment injury was owner and insurer of the offending motor vehicle. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner ought to have accepted the objection and dismissed the Sector 14, Gurgaon ......Petitioner Versus Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle 3, Gurgaon and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE

Brij Lal Vs. Commissioner Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Ors ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: 2008ACJ2168; [2007(114)FLR392]; (2007)146PLR489

a welfare legislation meant to provide speedy remedy to the workmen for the injuries suffered by them in the course of the learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken time to satisfy as the how the writ petition against the order passed on 29.11.2005. The writ petition was admitted and payment of compensation in excess of Rs. 1 lac was stayed. An application application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') before the Commissioner under the Act. The learned Commissioner passed