AMITAV K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in W.C. Case No. 23/2004, whereby the claim for compensation of the applicant-appellant was rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel has assailed the impugned order and submitted that, it would be evident from Annexure-1, that in similar circumstances the legal heir/ representative of the khalasi of the said truck had filed W.C. Case No. 13/2004 wliich was allowed bv the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the Court has rejected the claim of the appellant holding that no evidence has been brought on record that the claimant's husband, i.e. the alleged driver of the truck has died. The Court below has erred in rejecting the claim by holding that owner of the vehicle had lodged Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 215/ 1996 under Section 406, IPC and till date the driver has not been apprehended.
(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the claimant's husband has been missing for more than seven years and the case of the appellant is in pan materia with that of W.C. No. 13/2004 whereby the legal heirs of the missing khalasi have been granted compensation. On this limited ground and question, the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment/order is fit to be set aside and the appellant be granted the claimed compensation.;