SURESH KAIT,J. - (1.) PURSUANT to order dated 20.07.2012, Ms. Pooja Goel, ld. Counsel has made her appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and submitted that there is compensation amount granted in favour of the respondent no. 4 and the said respondent had expired after passing of the award. Therefore, she prayed that respondent no. 4 may be deleted from the array of the parties.
(2.) I ordered accordingly. Instant appeal has been directed against the impugned award dated 29.03.2012 only on the ground that respondents / claimants could not prove the services of the deceased as he was working permanently with his employer. Firstly, ld. Tribunal has gone wrong in establishing his salary as per the statement and record produced by PW3 Sh. Vinod Kumar, employer of the deceased. Secondly, ld. Tribunal has granted 50% increase of the future prospects whereas in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 it has been decided that future prospects can be granted only if the deceased was working on a permanent basis.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that PW3 in his examination-in-chief has stated that deceased Bhagirath was his permanent employee whereas in his cross-examination he deposed that he used to pay salary only for those working days on which he worked. He used to deduct the amount for the leaves taken by the deceased.;