Finders keepers

An amount of Rs 81,314 was paid out as dearness allowance to an employee by mistake. When the employer asked her to refund the excess amount, she refused. The trial court directed the employee to return the extra money. Relying on and reiterating earlier decisions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the lower court’s order. The high court held that where the employee had not made a misrepresentation or resorted to fraud, the excess amount paid by mistake shall not be recoverable from him or her (Maya Devi vs State of Punjab and others).

Missing in action

A washerman in the Indian Army did not rejoin after taking leave and went missing. His wife, who was in dire financial straits, applied for compassionate appointment and the other benefits she would be entitled to, if he had left service. The army authorities informed her that they could not help her as they had declared her husband a deserter. The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the army had acted in haste in concluding that her husband was a deserter. The court held that as he had left behind his belongings in the unit and could not be traced even after 11 years, and as the army had made no attempts to find him, the inference of desertion could not be made. It directed the authorities to pay all dues to the petitioner (Sunita Devi vs Union of India and others).

Double trouble

A firm whose employee died in a train accident while travelling in the course of his work, filed a claim under the Railways Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded it Rs 3,00,000 as compensation. It also filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation awarded its claim but filed for a review of the order as the firm had already been awarded compensation under another Act, a fact that it had suppressed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that no person could claim compensation under two Acts before two different fora for the same accident. The court held that while the petitioner had the right to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it couldn’t claim compensation under both the Acts (Preet Comforts vs Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation).

SOLON