FAO/151/2023 of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECHANICAL DIVISION) Vs NALITA BEHERA on 28 August 2026

ORDER

28.08.2026 Order No.15

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Since post-mortem report is available in the LCR, this Court is inclined to recall the direction issued in order dtd.07.08.2026.

3. Heard Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellant, Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.A. Guru, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-State inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Kataka in E.C. Case No.170-D of 2016, vide judgment dtd.06.04.2022. Vide the said award, learned Commissioner while allowing the claim so filed by Respondent No. 1, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,69,369/- along with 50% penalty and 12% interest per annum from the said amount when it fell due.

5. While assailing the impugned award, learned AGA vehemently contended that since the deceased was never working under the Appellant and proforma Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and as per the statement of Respondent No. 2, who was examined as OPW-1, he denied the employment as well as accidental death of the deceased on 27.02.2016, learned Commissioner on the face of such evidence of OPW-1 and the fact that the deceased was never under employment with the Appellant, could not have allowed the claim application with passing of the impugned award.

5.1. It is also contended that even if admitting that the deceased was working as Helper, learned Commissioner could not have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, taking into account the nature of work performed by the deceased being an unskilled worker and the minimum wages at the relevant point of time was Rs.200/- per day.

5.2. Making all these submissions, learned AGA contended that the award passed by the learned Commissioner with a direction on the Appellant to satisfy the same, needs interference of this Court.

6. Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Claimant- Respondent No. 1 on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. It is contended that the deceased was working as a Painter under Respondent No. 2, and was engaged in the painting work of Chitrokonda Dam. While so working he fell down on 27.02.2016 at about 9.30 p.m. in the dam and succumbed to the injury due to such falling down, while working under Respondent No. 2, in respect of the work undertaken by the Appellant and the proforma Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

6.1. It is contended that even though Respondent No. 2 in his evidence denied the employment of the deceased with him, but OPW-2 who happens to be the Executive Engineer of Ambaguda Division in his cross-examination admitted that on 27.02.2016, the painting work was undertaken at Chitrokonda Dam and it was executed by Respondent No. 2.

6.2. It is further contended that on such death of the deceased, U.D. Case No. 1 dtd.28.02.2016 was registered in the file of IIC, Chitrakonda P.S. In the final report so submitted, it was admitted that the deceased died on 27.02.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., as he fell down in Chitrakonda Dam inside water.

6.3. It is contended that in view of the evidence of OPW-2 and the final report submitted in the U.D. case, there is no doubt that the deceased died while working in the Dam and doing painting work, being engaged by Respondent No. 2 on 27.02.2016 at about 9.30 p.m.. It is also not disputed that Respondent No. 2 was engaged by the Appellant for such execution of the work in the Dam.

6.4. Making all these submissions, it is contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and needs no interference. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 contended that Respondent No. 1 will have no grievance, if this Court while interfering with the award, allow compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated in favour of Respondent No. 1.

7. To the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent No.1, learned AGA appearing for the Appellant contended that this Court may pass appropriate order.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, held the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The residue amount along with accrued interest, if any, be released in favour of the Appellant from the date of deposit till its disbursement.

9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 10:48:21 Signature Not Verified