Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 127 (HP)

MOHINDER SINGH v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

2005-05-11

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the award of the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, Chamba dated 18.1.1997 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Mr. Ankush Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimant submits that the procedure followed by the Commissioner is not at all warranted by law. The statements of the parties were not recorded and without recording any evidence the Commissioner has decided the case. According to the appellant the loss to the earning capacity is very high and he has not been given opportunity to prove the loss /disability suffered by him. 3. A reading of the order sheet of the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation makes rather interesting reading. It clearly indicates that the Officer in question had no idea whatsoever how judicial proceedings are to be conducted. Issues in the case were framed on 11th September, 1996. There is nothing in the order of the said date to show that any date was fixed for recording the evidence of the parties. How the file was taken up on 5th October, 1996, cannot be deciphered from the record. On 5th October, 1996 when the case was called the claimant was present. None was present on behalf of respondent No. 2. It has been recorded that on the previous date the said party had been bound down for the date. This is not reflected from the previous order dated 11.9.1996. The respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte. The case was then fixed on 4th November, 1996 for further proceedings. When the case was taken up on 4th November, 1996 all the parties were represented through their Counsel. The case was adjourned to 16th December, 1996 for recording of the statements. On 16th December, 1996 all the parties were represented through their Counsel. The claimant was present in person. The Presiding Officer was busy in some other work and ordered that the case be listed on 18.1.1997. On 18.1.1997 the award has been announced, without recording any evidence. 4. To say the least, the procedure followed by the Commissioner Workmens Compensation is totally alien to the Workmens Compensation Act and the Rules framed there under. It is also violative of the principles of natural justice. On 18.1.1997 the award has been announced, without recording any evidence. 4. To say the least, the procedure followed by the Commissioner Workmens Compensation is totally alien to the Workmens Compensation Act and the Rules framed there under. It is also violative of the principles of natural justice. These sort of orders adversely reflect on the capabilities of Administrative Officers to handle judicial functions. There is need to ensure that they know the basics of law before judicial functions are handed over to such Officers. In the impugned order the Commissioner. Workmens Compensation has mentioned that the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. This is factually incorrect. A perusal of the record shows that in fact no statement of the petitioner was recorded. The Commissioner, Workmens Compensation has dealt with the matter in a totally unprofessional and callous manner. 5. Since after framing of issues none of the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence to prove their case I have no option but to set aside the award of the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation dated 18.1.1997 in case No. 93/2VIII/94 and the case is remanded to the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Chamba. The parties who are represented are directed through their Counsel to appear before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation on 20th June, 2005. The Commissioner, Workmens Compensation shall issue notice to respondent No. 2 Narender Thakur only. Since the matter is an old one the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation is directed to record the evidence of the parties on day to day basis and to dispose of the main case at the earliest and in any event not latter than 31st October, 2005. Appeal allowed.