M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES versus RAM CHANDER PRADHAN AND ANR.
It is not necessary for a workman to be working in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 for the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to apply; persons employed otherwise than in clerical capacity in premises with a manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 are workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- Parties
- Appellant: M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES; 1st Respondent: RAM CHANDER PRADHAN; 2nd Respondent: AND ANR.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 14 November 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Dismissing First Appeal in Limine by High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Workmen's Compensation Act Applicability, Definition of Workman, Relationship to Factories Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M/S. SUNIL INDUSTRIES
Appellant
RAM CHANDER PRADHAN
1st Respondent
AND ANR.
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Dismissing First Appeal in Limine by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a workman must be employed in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
Ratio Decidendi
It is not necessary for a workman to be working in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 for the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to apply; persons employed otherwise than in clerical capacity in premises with a manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 are workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment