The Divisional Electrical Engineer vs K. Amarappa

This appeal by the employer is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,860.00 towards compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the workman, the Respondent herein, in an accident that took place on July 3, 1967.

The Respondent was working on July 3, 1967 as a Helper at Sadasivpet Distribution Section of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The workman was injured while he was attending to a fault on the I.T. line. He preferred a claim u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act of 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) for a sum of Rs. 5,040/- towards the compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him. The claim was resisted by the Appellant herein before the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation on various grounds. One of the objections raised was that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the workman and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation.

Three issues were framed by the lower court. The evidence of the applicant-workman was recorded. He was also cross-examined by the Counsel for the Appellant. Subsequently, when the case was posted for further enquiry and examination of the defence witnesses, no one appeared on March 12, 1970 on which date the Appellant was set ex-parte. On the same day the impugned order has been passed. Hence this appeal.

Though notice has been served on the Respondent on 8-1-1971 none has appeared when the case is called in this Court.

Mr. Anantha Babu, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the order of the Court below is illegal and unsustainable for reasons more than one. One of the reasons stated by the learned Counsel is that the order of the Court below does not disclose any reasons or grounds for conclusion arrived at by it. We have perused the impugned order. We do not find any reasons for the findings given by the Commissioner.

The short question that arises for decision is whether the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is bound to give reasons in support of his order. To appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 10 provides for making a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. On receipt of such a claim, the Commissioner has to issue notice to the opposite party. u/s 23 the Commissioner is vested with all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC for the purpose of taking evidence, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects. The method of recording evidence is indicated in Section 25 of the Act. The Commissioner is also empowered u/s 27 to submit any question of law for the decision of the High Court, if in his opinion, it was necessary for the decision of the case before him. Section 32 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. In virtue of the powers conferred by Section 32, the Governor General in Council has framed the Workmen''s Compensation Rules of 1924 (hereinafter called the Rules). Part V. comprising Rules 19 to 43 provides the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the disposal of cases under the Act. Rule 32 makes it obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to pass a speaking order. The rules framed under the Act have statutory force and the Commissioner has to strictly follow the same. This view of ours that the Commissioner has to pass a speaking order gains support from the provisions of Section 30 which provide for a regular appeal to the High Court from the orders of the Commissioner specified therein. Section 30(1)(a) provides for an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation in a lump sum. The present order is indisputably appealable u/s 30(1)(a) of the Act. Unless and until the original authority passed an order giving reasons in support of its conclusions and findings, it would be very difficult for the Appellate Court to exercise its jurisdiction properly and effectively. In other words, the Appellate Court must be in a position to know the mind of the original court in passing the impugned order. If no reasons are given and simply the findings are recorded, it would be difficult for the appellate authority to discharge its function effectively and do real and full justice to the parties that appear before it. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation functions as a quasi-judicial tribunal under the statute. He is, therefore, bound to pass speaking orders assigning reasons in support of his conclusion. The impugned order does not disclose any reasons in support of the findings given by the Commissioner. In this view, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case. It should not be understood that we have expressed any opinion on the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the merits of the case.

The appeal, is, therefore, allowed setting aside the order of the Commissioner on the sole ground that it is not a speaking order, and the matter is remanded to the file of the Court of the Commissioner for disposal according to law and after affording an opportunity to both the parties to lead fresh evidence if deemed necessary. There shall be no order as to costs.