Appalswammy, East Paint Machanical Department vs The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Wort, Actg. C.J.

This is an appeal under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The application to appeal was very considerably out of time but owing to the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the time was extended u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

The claimant made a claim on the respondent the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. alleging that he met with an accident which, I understand, was due to a splinter from a drill striking his eyes as a result of which his left eye had become affected or he had lost his sight.

From the record of the case it appears that the Tata Iron and Steel Co. refused to admit the facts alleged by the claimant and consequently as the claimant persisted in his claim, on March 28, 1930, the Commissioner, appointed under the Act, ordered a copy of the petition to be sent to the Tata Iron and Steel Co. under Rule 24 of the Rules made under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Appendix II, Part V.

It is important to notice this by reason of what happened subsequently. There was a reply to this notice on April 23 in which the Tata Iron and Steel Co. denied their liability to pay compensation. The Commissioner then fixed May 12 for the taking of evidence. On May 16, the Commissioner made this order:

The witnesses present to-day are of no importance. The Officer in charge F.A.H and the writer of Accidents Reports and General Foreman should be called, while Eye Hospital, Calcutta, should be written to with special reference to this case.

On June 17, an order was made stating that the Eye Surgeon of Calcutta under whose care it appears the claimant had been, made a report stating that farther examination was necessary and on July 1, the final reply from the Eye Surgeon in Calcutta was received and on that reply the Commissioner dismissed the claim. It is quite clear that this class of cases almost entirely depends upon medical evidence, but this does not admit of the procedure adopted by the Commissioner. He acted upon a letter written by the Surgeon from Calcutta; it purported to be a report which stated that the claimant was not entitled to compensation. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation was not for the Surgeon in Calcutta to state even had he been in the witness-box, but it was for the Commissioner to decide after a proper appreciation of the medical and other evidence in the case.

The Workmen''s Compensation Act in India is a copy of the English Workmen''s Compensation Act; and so far as this case is concerned the relevant Sections are from Section 19 onwards. Section 19 provides that questions arising in any proceeding under this Act are referred to the Commissioner, and on a proper interpretation of that clause, which is referable to what has taken place in this case, a claim has been made. But as it has been repudiated by the employer, thereupon the jurisdiction of the Commissioner arises. So far as the procedure is concerned we are governed by the ordinary fundamental rules of the administration of justice, so far as they are not abrogated by the Rules made under Appendix II, Part V. It is clear in this case that the Commissioner had no power to dismiss summarily the application of the claimant as that power is only given by Rule 22 on the Rules to which I have, made reference.

When once he has issued notice under Rule 23 the case had to proceed according to law and the rule to which I have referred. The Commissioner has to record issues in a somewhat summary form, he appears to have recorded them in his order sheet, he has to maintain under his hand a brief diary of the proceedings; he has also in a judgment under Rule 30, to state concisely his finding on each of the issues. In this case he has contented himself by stating that the claimant is not entitled to compensation, not by a proper appreciation of legal evidence but by merely repeating what the Surgeon in Calcutta had stated in his report or letter. This procedure is not in accordance with law. The Surgeon''s report is not admissible unless the Surgeon himself comes to prove it, giving an opportunity to the claimant, if necessary, to examine him if the Surgeon is his own witness or cross examine him if he is a witness on the other side. What the result might have been had the Commissioner determined this case in accordance with law, it is impossible to say and at this stage, unnecessary. What is clear is that the matter was not disposed of in accordance with law and therefore the case must be remanded for that purpose to the Commissioner. It might be convenient here to mention Rule 30 of Appendix II of the Workmen''s Compensation Rules which the Commissioner might think applicable in the circumstances and also to notice that by Rule 35, certain provisions of the CPC are made to apply.

The appeal is allowed with costs. The case is remanded to the Commissioner to be heard and determined according to law.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.