Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 871 (HP)

HARI SINGH v. BIRI RAM

2010-06-14

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT : V.K. Ahuja, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. dated 29.6.2007, vide which the application filed by the appellants for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed. A notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was dismissed mainly on the ground that at the time of withdrawing of the earlier application, no prayer was made for permission to file fresh application, as provided under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner, without conducting any proceedings in the case and without recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the application filed by the appellants. 4. Section 22 (3) of the Act reads as under: "If the applicant is illiterate or for any other reason is unable to furnish the required information in writing, the application shall, if the applicant so desires, be prepared under the direction of the Commissioner." 5. A perusal of Rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Act shows that only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings pending under the Act before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation. It provides that provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 and 2 shall apply to the proceedings before the Commissioner and not other provisions except those provided in Rule 41. 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner shows that he has applied the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in dismissing the application filed by the present appellants before him. This provision does not apply to the proceedings under the Act since there is no specific provision that Rule 3 Order 23 of the CPC shall also apply to such proceedings. This provision does not apply to the proceedings under the Act since there is no specific provision that Rule 3 Order 23 of the CPC shall also apply to such proceedings. Moreover, strict rules of the CPC cannot be applied to the applications filed under the provisions of the Act and if the applicant is illiterate or is unable to furnish the required information, the application has to be prepared under the directions of the Commissioner. Thus, the provisions are to be liberally construed in favour of the claimants and no strict provisions of the CPC can be applied to such proceedings. 7. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside accordingly. The case is remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 1.7.2010. The Commissioner shall try to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date fixed i.e. 1.7.2010. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.