Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants against the judgment and award passed by MACT. At the very outset, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeal. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue no. 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of objections which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeal. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in : 2008 -09 (suppl.) RAR 1 (SC) ii) New India Ass. Versus Pratibha Shrivastava reported in : 2011 ACJ 945 iii) NICL versus Indira Srivastava reported in : 2008(1) TAC 424 (SC)
(2.) E . Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.
(3.) IN my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this Court.;