|
1
|
SMT
QURAISHA BIBI
VS
THE
SHIPPING CORP. OF INDIA
2002(95)
FLR 1179 [HC-CAL-DB]
|
1
2
3
|
AN EMPLOYEE DIED DUE TO CANCER
WIDOW ASSERTED THAT CANCER DUE TO EMPLOYMENT AND CLAIMED COMPENSATION FOR CONTRACTING OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
IS THE PETITIONER TO LEAD DETAILED EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT IS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ?
|
1
2
3
4
|
IN CASES OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES IF AN ASSERTION IS MADE BY THE PETITIONER, DETAILED EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY
THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT EMPLOYMENT RELATED IS ON THE EMPLOYER
IF DEATH IS DUE TO NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR OF EMPLOYMENT NO LIABILITY ON EMPLOYER
HOWEVER IF EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTES TO CAUSE OR ACCELERATION OF DEATH THEN IT WILL AMOUNT TO INDUSTRIAL INJURY
|
|
2
|
LAKSHMI NARAYANA
SHETTY
VS
SHANTHA
2002(94) FLR 658 [SC
|
1
2
3
|
A HOUSE OWNER ENGAGED A PAINTER TO PAINT HIS HOUSE ON TOTAL CONTRACT BASIS [THAT IS IT]
THE CONTRACTOR-CUM-WORKER FELL-DOWN AND DIED
W.C.COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM-THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED IT MATTER NOW CHALLENGED IN SUPREME COURT
|
1
|
SINCE IT WAS ON TOTAL CONTRACT BASIS AND NOT ON WAGE BASIS, THE CASE WILL NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923
|
|
3
|
GUJARAT ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
VS
HATHI BAI
2003(2) LLN 585[HC-GUJ-DB]
|
1
2
|
LEGAL HEIRS FILED AND OBTAINED DECREES FOR COMPENSATION UNDER W.C.ACT 1923 (Rs.1,57,5580/-) AND FROM MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (Rs..3,27,000/-)
CAN THE LEGAL HEIRS CLAIM BOTH THESE AMOUNTS FOR THE SAME ACCIDENTS ?
|
1
2
|
THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF TAKING ONLY ONE BENEFIT
SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY CLAIMED BENEFIT OF Rs.1,57,560/- UNDER THE W.C.ACT 1923, ONLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS CLAIMABLE UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988
|
