1. "Justice should not only be done but it should also seem to have been done" is an of-quoted adage in the justice delivery system. In the face of tell-tale fraud on the judicial system, involving misconduct of the head of a quasi-judicial body and adhering to the above noted principle I feel called upon to travel beyond the parameters of conventional method of judicial review of a judgment in appeal and pass necessary orders solely to uphold the rule and majesty of law. 2. Two passages from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 749 would give an idea as to what should be the duty of the court to prevent miscarriage of justice. Hence, the apt observations of the Apex Court are reproduced below : - "The courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected. The trial/first appellate courts cannot get swayed by abstract technicalities and close their eyes to factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial, i.e., to get at the truth, and oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has a greater duty and responsibility, i.e., to render justice in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue. 35. As pithily stated in Jennison v. Baker (All FR p. 1006d) "The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope." Courts have to ensure that accused persons are punished and if deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the deficiencies, deal with the same appropriately within the framework of law. Justice has no favourite, except the truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice." 3. Justice has no favourite, except the truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice." 3. In similar tone and tenor, the hon'ble Supreme Court again made the following observations in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 374 : - "24. It was significantly said that law, to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. It has to keep the promise to justice and it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchalantly. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its proteetion lose hope, (see Jennison v. Baker). Increasingly, people are believing as observed by Salmon quoted by Diogenes Laertius in Lives of the Philosophers, "Laws are like spiders' webs : if some light or powerless thing falls into them, it is caught, but a bigger one can break through and get away." Jonathan Swift, in his "Essay on the Faculties of the Mind" said in similar lines : " Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through." 4. This case has brought to fore large scale scandal apparently going on in the Tribunal constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, CW.C. Act'), in Manipur. The facts of this case would show 'that the course adopted by the claimant in collusion with the Commissioner and other officers tends to make a mockery of law. This case is a classic instance which gives an insight as to how judicial proceedings can be manipulated to ones advantage with fabricated and concocted evidence. Now I proceed to decide this appeal on merit in the light of the trend-setting guidelines given by the Apex Court. 5. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2003 passed by Shri Th. Mangi Singh, the then Commissioner under W.C. Act, Manipur, Imphal, in Claim Case No. 24 of 2002. By this impugned order, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,22,654 with interest @ of 9% p.a. in favour of the claimant principal respondent. 5. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2003 passed by Shri Th. Mangi Singh, the then Commissioner under W.C. Act, Manipur, Imphal, in Claim Case No. 24 of 2002. By this impugned order, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,22,654 with interest @ of 9% p.a. in favour of the claimant principal respondent. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, M/s. United Insurance Company, Imphal Branch has preferred this appeal under section 30 of the W.C. Act. 6. A glaring irregularity which was noticed during the hearing was that although the award was pronounced on 29.11.2003, the same was signed on 27.11.2003. This interpolation in the original document prompted me to scrutinize/browse the record thoroughly. 7. Heard Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H. Dijen Singh, learned counsel for the claimant/principal respondent. The owner of the vehicle did not turn up to oppose the appeal despite being notified. Considering the importance of the matter I also heard Mr. A. Jagjit Singh, learned State Counsel as amicus curiae. 8. The principal respondent filed the claim application asserting that on 10.1.2002, he was engaged by Shri Moirangthem Ranjit Singh (Proforma respondent) to drive his passenger bus bearing registration number MN-01/0116. It was also the case of the claimant that an accident took place on the National Highway No. 53 at about 6.00 P.M. due to head on collision with a truck coming from the opposite direction. According to the claimant, due to the accident he sustained fracture on his right leg resulting into permanent disablement to drive any motor vehicle. Accordingly, the claimant/ principal respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 6,23,940. In the claim application, the claimant disclosed his age as being 31 years old and also stated that he was getting monthly wages of Rs. 6,000. 9. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant submitted photo copies of driving licence, vehicular documents, one medical certificate, birth certificates, insurance policy, etc., etc. Beside this, the claimant proffered his oral evidence and also examined the owner of the vehicle and one more witness. On the basis of such oral and documentary evidences, the award has been passed. The insurance company contested the case and submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any such compensation under the peculiar facts and circumstances. Beside this, the claimant proffered his oral evidence and also examined the owner of the vehicle and one more witness. On the basis of such oral and documentary evidences, the award has been passed. The insurance company contested the case and submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any such compensation under the peculiar facts and circumstances. The insurance company also took a specific plea that the applicant was not a workman within the meaning of the W.C. Act, and, thus, he is not entitled to any amount of compensation. 10. The claimant's testimony was recorded on 22.11.2002. While giving such deposition, he disclosed his age as being 46 years. As noted earlier in the claim application, the age of the applicant was shown to be 31 years. Due to this incongruity, the applicant submitted a petition on 18.10.2003 seeking leave of the Tribunal to file fresh birth certificate stating that the earlier birth certificate submitted by him was not a genuine one. Later on, two more certificates were submitted by the claimant. In all, 3 (three) birth certificates were submitted by the claimant. 11. After adverting to the evidence, the Commissioner held that the claimant was a workman under the bus owner and the accident took place during the course of employment. The Commissioner has also held that the applicant sustained injuries in the nature of permanent disablement and after adopting the multiplier given under Schedule-IV of the W.C. Act, the award was passed. 12. Apparently and admittedly, the claimant did not examine the doctor under whom he had taken the treatment. In scores of judgments, this court has held that the Commissioner under W.C. Act is bound to assess the loss of earning capacity of the claimant due to injuries sustained by him and that can be done only after examination of doctors and/or after obtaining medical opinion. This legal principle was laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjit Kumar & Anr. 2000 (2) GLT 567, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandreswar Thakur & Ors. 2001 (1) GLT 393, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Okram Subhash Chandra Singh & Anr., 2007 (2) GLT 657 and many other judgments. Despite such directions of this court, the Commissioner flouted the guidelines and norms laid down by this court and has issued the impugned order without examining any medical officer. Ltd. v. Chandreswar Thakur & Ors. 2001 (1) GLT 393, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Okram Subhash Chandra Singh & Anr., 2007 (2) GLT 657 and many other judgments. Despite such directions of this court, the Commissioner flouted the guidelines and norms laid down by this court and has issued the impugned order without examining any medical officer. The Commissioner seems to have adopted such a course only with a view to grant exaggerated amount of compensation. In my opinion, had the Tribunal examined the doctor, there was every possibility that the fracture on right tibia might not have been declared as permanent disablement. This infirmity alone is sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment. Other lacunae and illegalities in the judgment are discussed below. 13. As mentioned at the out set of this order, this case has brought to light the rampant corruption going on in the Tribunal under the W.C. Act. The following facts would show as to how grossly inflated awards are being passed in favour of the claimants with oblique motive, in conspiracy with the claimant to defraud public money and that too on the basis of forged and fabricated documents : (i) In the claim application, the claimant disclosed his age as being 31 years. In the birth certificates allegedly issued from the Office of Imphal Municipal Council on 2.2.2002 and 29.9.2003, the applicant was shown to have been born on 22.1.1957 ; whereas in another photo copy of birth certificate allegedly issued by the same authority on 2.2.2002, the date of birth of the claimant was shown to be on 22.1.1971. I have already noted earlier that all these certificates were submitted before the Tribunal by the claimant himself. The later certificate must have been filed to prove that the claimant was 31 years old in the year 2002. Attempt of tampering with one of the photo copies of the birth certificate is also apparent in one of the certificates. (ii) The above apart one of the Birth Certificates was signed and issued on 29.9.2003, whereas the certificate shows that the birth was registered only on 30.9.2003. Since the birth certificate was issued prior to registration of birth it is out and out a forged/false document. (iii) The claimant had also submitted a copy of the driving licence. As could be gathered from the record, the driving licence was issued on 26.3.1975. Since the birth certificate was issued prior to registration of birth it is out and out a forged/false document. (iii) The claimant had also submitted a copy of the driving licence. As could be gathered from the record, the driving licence was issued on 26.3.1975. It is true that the driving licence was renewed on 31.3.1978 revalidating the same up to 31.3.2003. Alurking suspicion can also be entertained about the genuine revalidation of the driving licence for certain reasons. Firstly, date of birth was not mentioned in the driving licence. Secondly, the driving licence was issued in the year 1975 and as per the first birth certificate showing the birth date as on 22.1.1971, the claimant was less than 4 years old on the date of issue of D/L. Even as per subsequent birth certificates, the claimant had just ittained the age of 18 years and no driving licence for heavy passenger motor vehicle could have been issued in the year 1975 as 20 years of age was mandatory for getting a licence for driving heavy vehicles. Thirdly, revalidation of D/L for a long period of 25 years is also another ground to suspect about it's genuineness. In this way, it appears to me that the claimant was not only driving the passenger bus illegally by using a fraudulent driving licence, he also utilized the same to get hefty amount of compensation. This is a sheer instance of committing fraud with a public limited company and that too through a quasi-judicial forum. Strangely, all these discrepancies did not come to the notice of the Commissioner. It may be so that he had intentionally overlooked these aspects. (iv) The medical certificate furnished by the claimant in the Tribunal is also not above suspicion. In this certificate also Dr. Irom Brajabihari Singh of Imphal certified that the claimant was 31 years old and that he was unable to do his normal work because of the injury on his right leg. Since, the claimant was nearly 45 years old, it appears to me that the doctor had also issued the medical certificate without actual medical examination. Strangely the doctor has also not mentioned in his certificate that he had issued the certificate on the basis of treatment done by him. Be that as it may, since the doctor is a cardiologist there was less possibility of his treating a fracture injury. Strangely the doctor has also not mentioned in his certificate that he had issued the certificate on the basis of treatment done by him. Be that as it may, since the doctor is a cardiologist there was less possibility of his treating a fracture injury. In this way, it appears to me that the claimant must have obtained this certificate only to play fraud in the Tribunal to get a fictitious award. (v) In the claim application the claimant also stated that his monthly wages was Rs. 6,000 P.M., whereas according to his employer the monthly salary was Rs. 2,000 only. On the other hand according to PW 2, Manager of bus owner, monthly wages of the claimant was only Rs. 1,000 with daily allowance of Rs. 30. In this way the claimant had also made a false statement in the claim application. (vi) Despite there being clear evidence of forgery the Commissioner refrained from asking the claimant to produce originals of his D/L and birth certificates dated 2.2.2002. It appears to me that the Commissioner had closed his eyes since he was predetermined to award a particular amount in favour of the claimant. (vii) The record also reveals that while depositing the award money the insurance company had made a written request to the Commissioner not to disburse the money as they were going to prefer appeal before the High Court. However, the prayer was rejected on the ground that without any stay order payment cannot be with-held and with this view the entire money was released to the claimant within a short period. Had the Commissioner been impartial and had adopted a judicial approach he could have given a reasonable time to the insurance company before releasing the money. This approach of the Commissioner, coupled with other facts and circumstances also indicates that the Commissioner was in undue haste to give unjustifiable and undeserved money to the claimant. (viii) Despite there being large number of discrepancies in documentary and oral evidence, the Commissioner namely, Th. Mangi Singh, choose to ignore the same with oblique motive. I have already noted earlier that although the award was signed on 27.11.2003, it was officially shown to be pronounced on 29.11.2003. Subsequently, the same Commissioner issued a photo copy of the award putting 29.11.2003 below his signature which amounts to tampering of the official document. Mangi Singh, choose to ignore the same with oblique motive. I have already noted earlier that although the award was signed on 27.11.2003, it was officially shown to be pronounced on 29.11.2003. Subsequently, the same Commissioner issued a photo copy of the award putting 29.11.2003 below his signature which amounts to tampering of the official document. All these things must have been done in conspiracy with the claimant to dupe the insurance company by awarding hefty amount of compensation for negligible injury of fracture and that too on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 14. During the argument, Shri Ch. Bimalchandra Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company, also produced another order of this court dated 6.3.2008 passed in FAO Nos. 11 and 12 of 2002. In that judgment also this court found that the same Commissioner had awarded nearly Rs. 4.5 lakhs to two drivers of the same vehicle for sustaining 40 to 55% permanent disablement on the basis of tampered/forged medical certificates. This court has come across many such instances but presently the documents are not in the hand of the court. Since the Commissioner under W.C. Act was in the habit of passing awards on the basis of forged and fabricated documents inference can be drawn that he was definitely a party to the offence of cheating and fraud. 15. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby set aside. Since the award has been obtained by the claimant on the basis of forged and false documents, he is directed to refund the money by way of depositing the same in the office of the Commissioner, W.C. Act, Manipur within a period of two months from today. The Commissioner is directed to hold de novo enquiry and pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. 16. Mr. H. Dijen Singh, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant may not be asked to refund the award money in the light of the judgment passed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, 2007 ACJ1. With due reverence to the hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different. With due reverence to the hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different. In the cited case, the award of the Tribunal was interfered with by the High Court on technical ground ; whereas, in the present case, the award has been set aside on the ground of fraud in a quasi-judicial forum. As such, the cited authority is not applicable in the present case. 17. A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Manipur with photo copies of all the relevant documents, like claim application, driving licence, medical certificate, birth certificates (3 in number), petition dated 18.10.2003, police report, copy of the award as well as a copy of the judgment of this court passed in FAO Nos. 11 and 12 of 2002. It is expected that the Chief Secretary, Manipur shall take appropriate action against the erring officials, such as the concerned officer of Imphal Municipal Council, Doctor, Commissioner of W.C. Act, who are prima facie found involved in the offences. The Chief Secretary shall also be at liberty to file FIR before the appropriate Police Station as expeditiously as possible. I also feel that a court can not remain a mute spectator despite noticing perpetual fraud played upon the judicial system with impunity. If appropriate steps are not taken by the court and the concerned authorities it would amount to acknowledging/ approving corruption as a part of the system. 18. Apart from the administrative and executive action to book the culprits, I feel that it is high time for the Government to think as to whether it would be appropriate to bring the office of Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 under the control of the High Court, converting it to be a full-fledged judicial tribunal, like other tribunals constituted under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, Land Regulation, Rent Act, etc.. 19. The Registry is also directed to endorse a copy of this judgment to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court for His Lordship's kind consideration.