Mohan Singh vs Chandra Sagar Das and Others

Thadani, C.J.—This is an appeal u/s 80, Workmen''s Compensation Act directed against an order dated 17th October 1946, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, purporting to act as Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The order is in these terms:

Read the causes shown by the contractor, Sardar Mohan Singh. Admittedly the deceased and injured coolies received their injuries while doing work given by the contractor. Apparently these persons were coolies who were engaged in loading and unloading logs. These coolies are "Workmen" vide explanatory note, p. 60, Workmen''s Compensation Act. Considering all the points and facts of the case, I find that Sardar Mohan Singh is liable to pay compensation. Office to issue notice.

Sd/-S.I. Chaudhury, Addl. D.C. & Commer., W.C. Lakhimpur, 17-10-1946.

Mr. Barooah for the appellant, Sardar Mohan Singh, has contended that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, had no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings brought under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, as only the Deputy Commissioners in Assam have been appointed ex officio Commissioners under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. We issued notice to the Government Advocate to satisfy us whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, who passed the order appealed from, was ex officio Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. Mr. Barman frankly stated that ho is unable to satisfy us that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, is an ex officio Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. This statement alone, made by Mr. Barman, is sufficient for the purpose of quashing the order in question and ordering a re-trial of the claims made. We would have in any case quashed the order appealed from even if the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner was in fact ex officio Commissioner, for the plain reason that the order passed by him is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Workmen''s Compensation Act. For instance, the procedure laid down u/s 10A(4) has not been followed, in that when the employer Mohan Singh disclaimed liability, the Commissioner should have informed the dependents of the deceased workmen that it was open to them to prefer a claim for compensation. It does not appear from the record that the dependants made any claim at all. Again the provisions of Section 25, Workmen''s Compensation Act have not been complied with.

We think this is a matter in which the, order appealed from must be set aside, and the proceedings remanded for re-trial by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur himself, with direction that the proceedings be heard and determined according to law, bearing in mind the provisions of Sections 10A (4) and 25, Workmen''s Compensation Act.

Ram Labhaya, J.

I agree.