Mohinder Singh vs Oriental Insurance Company and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the award of the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act, Chamba dated January 18, 1997 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the claimant.

Mr. Ankush Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant submits that the procedure followed by the Commissioner is not at all warranted by law. The statements of the parties were not recorded and without recording any evidence the Commissioner has decided the case. According to the appellant the loss to the earning capacity is very high and he has not been given opportunity to prove the loss/disability suffered by him.

A reading of the order sheet of the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation makes rather interesting reading. It clearly indicates that the Officer in question had no idea whatsoever how judicial proceedings are to be conducted. Issues in the case were framed on September 11, 1996. There is nothing in the order of the said date to show that any date was fixed for recording the evidence of the parties. How the file was taken up on October 5, 1996, cannot be deciphered from the record. On October 5, 1996 when the case was called the claimant was present. None was present on behalf of respondent No. 2. It has been recorded that on the previous date the said party had been bound down for the date. This is not reflected from the previous order dated September 11, 1996. The respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte. The case was then fixed on November 4, 1996 for further proceedings. When the case was taken up on November 4, 1996 all the parties were represented through their counsel. The case was adjourned to December 16, 1996 for recording of the statements. On December 16, 1996 all the parties were represented through their counsel. The claimant was present in person. The Presiding Officer was busy in some other work and ordered that the case be listed on January 18, 1997. On January 18, 1997 the award has been announced, without recording any evidence.

To say the least, the procedure followed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation is totally alien to the Workmen''s Compensation Act and the Rules framed there under. It is also violative of the principles of natural justice. These sort of orders adversely reflect on the capabilities of Administrative Officers to handle judicial functions. There is need to ensure that they know the basics of law before judicial functions are handed over to such Officers. In the impugned order the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation has mentioned that the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. This is factually incorrect. A perusal of the record shows that in fact no statement of the petitioner was recorded. The Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation has dealt with the matter in a totally unprofessional and callous manner.

Since after framing of issues none of the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence to prove their case I have no option but to set aside the award of the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation dated January 18, 1997 in Case No. 93/2VIII/94 and the case is remanded to the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Chamba. The parties who are represented are directed through their counsel to appear before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation on June 20, 2005. The Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation shall issue notice to respondent No. 2 Narender Thakur only. Since the matter is an old one the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation is directed to record the evidence of the parties on day to day basis and to dispose of the main case at the earliest and in any event not later than October 31, 2005.