Judgment Appeal under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the proceedings in R.C.No.C/4166/2007 dated 19/04/2008 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Dy. Commissioner of Labour Zone, II Eluru. It is unfortunate, if not shocking, that the Government in Labour Department had entrusted the powers of adjudication under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) to an individual, who did not have even the basic understanding of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The result is that the Officer passed an order in an application filed under the Act in a manner which cannot be expected even from an illiterate or layman. The consequences thereof had to be suffered by the appellants herein. He sole respondent herein filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour claiming compensation. She pleaded that her husband Sri P. Sitarama Rao, was employed as Upper Division Clerk, with the appellants and that in a fatal accident that occurred on 07.04.2007, he died. On account of there not being the regular incumbent, a Full Additional Charge was entrusted to another Officer, whose name is not clear from the record. The claim was not even numbered. Straight away a notice, dated 25.05.2008, appears to have been issued requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,12,940/-. The appellants addressed a letter dated 14.03.2008, to the Commissioner requesting him to furnish the particulars. The Commissioner, in turn, issued the notice dated 19.04.2008, requiring the appellants to deposit the said amount. In the notice, it was stated that the age of the deceased was 49 years; he was drawing salary of Rs.29,321/-, per month, limited to Rs.4,000/- as per Section 4 of the Act, and indicating the formula. Stating that the appellants did not respond to the notice, the Commissioner issued memo dated 27.11.2008 requiring the appellants to deposit the amount immediately. He threatened the appellants with action under Section 4-A of the Act, in case of failure. The appellants challenge the same. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Officer, who took up the matter, lacked the fundamental knowledge of the procedure involved and that he has straight away issued the notice, without even numbering the case. The appellants challenge the same. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Officer, who took up the matter, lacked the fundamental knowledge of the procedure involved and that he has straight away issued the notice, without even numbering the case. He contends that the Official, who passed the order, bypassed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and did not follow the basic tenets of adjudication. Sri Meka Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in his understanding of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Commissioner passed the order, duly taking into account, the age and wages and applying the prescribed formula. He contends that no interference is warranted. The Act is of not any recent origin, so that one can assume lack of proper understanding on the part of the Officers, who are required to enforce the provisions of the Legislation. It is in existence for the past about 9 decades. It is almost a complete code for determination of the claims of the workmen, who are injured or the dependants of the workmen, who died in the course of employment. The Act contains the provisions that prescribe the formula for determination of compensation, the nature of injuries and the corresponding disability, the procedure to be followed for determination of the claims etc. Section 20 of the Act provides for appointment of Commissioners; Section 22 prescribes the form of application to be made for claiming compensation; and Section 23 confers the power of a civil Court as well as the criminal Court, on certain aspects upon the Commissioner. Section 24 mandates that before any further steps are taken, the appearance of the opposite party must be ensured and the method of recording of evidence is indicated in Section 25. Added to that, Chapter V of the Workmen’s Compensation (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1953 (for short ‘the Rules’) prescribes a detailed procedure. Rule 23 places an obligation on the Commissioner to examine the claimant, on oath. If no basis is found in the claim, he is conferred with the power to reject the application in limini, under Rules 24 and 25. If any substance is found in the application, the Commissioner is required to issue notice to the opposite party. Rule 23 places an obligation on the Commissioner to examine the claimant, on oath. If no basis is found in the claim, he is conferred with the power to reject the application in limini, under Rules 24 and 25. If any substance is found in the application, the Commissioner is required to issue notice to the opposite party. Rule 28 obligates him to frame issues and to decide the matter thereon, obviously by recording evidence. Rule 32 requires that orders must be passed in claim petition through judgment. It is important to extract Rules 27, 28 and 32: “27. Appearance and examination of opposite party:- (1) The opposite party may, and if so required by the Commissioner shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Commissioner may permit, file a written statement dealing with the claim raised in the application and shall send a copy thereof to the applicant or the applicants, as the case may be, at the address furnished in the application by registered post, acknowledgment due and shall send the acknowledgement receipt passed by the applicant to the Commissioner. (2) If the opposite party contests the claim, the Commissioner may, and if no written statement has been filed shall, proceed to examine him upon the claim and shall reduce the result of the examination to writing. 28. Framing of issues:- (1) After considering any written statement and the result of any examination of the parties, the Commissioner shall ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to him to depend. (2) In recording the issues, the Commissioner shall distinguish between those issues which in his opinion concern points of facts and those which concern points of law. 32. Judgment:- (1) The Commissioner, in passing orders, shall record concisely in a judgment his finding on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding. (2) In recording the issues, the Commissioner shall distinguish between those issues which in his opinion concern points of facts and those which concern points of law. 32. Judgment:- (1) The Commissioner, in passing orders, shall record concisely in a judgment his finding on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding. (2) The Commissioner, at the time of signing and dating his judgment, shall pronounce his decision, and thereafter no addition or alteration shall be made to the judgment other than the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from any accidental slip or omission.” When such a detailed procedure is prescribed under the Act and the Rules, it is rather shocking that the Officer, who functioned at Eluru in April, 2008, did nothing more than issuing a notice straight away requiring the appellants to deposit the amount. It has already been mentioned that he did not even choose to number the case. For all practical purposes, the Commissioner is required to function like a regular Court, in the context of framing of issues, recording of evidence and rendering the judgment. However, the incumbent at Eluru in the year 2008, had chosen to terminate the proceedings instituted by the respondent herein with the following notice. “OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR: ZONE-II: ELURU Rc.No.C/4166/2007 Dt:19.04.2008 NOTICE SUB: Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Fatal accident occurred to Sri P. Seetha Rama Rao, U.D.C., on 07.04.2007 – Deposit of Compensation – Reg. REF: (1) Representation of Smt. P. Jayalalitha, Ibrahimpatnam. (2) This office Notice of even No., dt.9.12.2007 and 25.2.2008. (3) Lr.No.AAO/ERO/IBPM/JAO/PRS/D.No.245, dt.14.3.2008 of the Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Ibrahimpatnam. &&& According to the particulars furnished in the reference cited, to Sri P. Seetha Rama Rao, U.D.C., aged 49 years and was drawing pay of Rs.28,321/- per month had met with fatal accident on 07.04.2007 while on duty. Basing on the age at 49 years and was drawing pay of Rs.29,321/- per month and limited to Rs.4,000/- as per Section 4 read with Schedule IV of W.C. Act compensation admissible is Rs.3,12,940/- (Rupees three Lakhs, Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty only). Basing on the age at 49 years and was drawing pay of Rs.29,321/- per month and limited to Rs.4,000/- as per Section 4 read with Schedule IV of W.C. Act compensation admissible is Rs.3,12,940/- (Rupees three Lakhs, Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty only). Age: 49 years – factor 156.47 Wage: Limited to Rs.4,000/- [4,000 x 50/100 x 156.47 = Rs.3,12,940] Therefore, you are directed to deposit Rs.3,12,940/- (Rupees three Lakhs, Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty only) by way of Demand Draft in favour of “Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Eluru” on State Bank of India, Eluru towards compensation payable to dependants of Sri P. Seetha Rama Rao. Your arealso informed that the amount of Compensation may be varied at a later date, if any of the constituents are differed subsequently. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Eluru (FAC)” It is through this note, that the Commissioner placed the appellants under obligation to pay the compensation. Since a Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act is not a regular Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Officer, minor procedural lapses here and there, can certainly go overlook. However, he cannot be permitted to completely disregard the procedure and act like a layman, or to ignore the basic tenets. Even a Lower Division Clerk in the office and Record Assistant, who causes service of notices, would have a better perception of the proceedings and procedure, under the Act and Rules. It shocks the conscience of any one to know that an Officer, who functioned under the Act, did not know the basics. It appears that an Official, who is totally ignorant of provisions, was kept in full additional charge of such an important office and he found himself in a wonder land, in the matter of dealing with the cases. Except that he was guided by somebody about the formula and that he had anxiety to get the amount deposited with him, he did not show any inclination to get himself acquainted with the procedure. It is not uncommon that the regular Courts or quasi-judicial authorities commit mistakes and on certain occasions, unnecessary burden is placed upon some of the parties. In such cases, the remedy of appeal is availed and the inconvenience or the damage is prevented. The proceedings arising under the Act, however, constitute a class by themselves. It is not uncommon that the regular Courts or quasi-judicial authorities commit mistakes and on certain occasions, unnecessary burden is placed upon some of the parties. In such cases, the remedy of appeal is availed and the inconvenience or the damage is prevented. The proceedings arising under the Act, however, constitute a class by themselves. Irrespective of merits, or demerits of the order, an aggrieved party is required to deposit the entire amount, under Section 30 of the Act, as a condition precedent. The result would be that even if the authority passed an atrocious and untenable order, as in the instant case, substantial hardship is caused to the affected party, since the order cannot be challenged except by depositing the amount. The Appointing Authority of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have been careful in posting an incumbent, whatever be the exigency. For the foregoing reasons, the C.M.A. is allowed. The notice dated 19.04.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru. He is directed to process the application submitted by the respondent from the stage of numbering it in accordance with law and dispose of the same following the prescribed procedure. The appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by them. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order along with the notice, dated 19.04.2008 to the Commissioner of Labour, Government of A.P., forthwith. The Commissioner of Labour shall verify as to who was the official that passed the order and initiate necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.