M. NARAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment, accordingly to Law, rises out of a civil miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R1 and R2, under section 30 of the workmen s Compensation act, 1923, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth, in Para 2, infra.

( 2 ) ORDER, dated 20-4-2002, of the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, hyderabad, made in WC No. 135 of 2001, of his file.

( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record.

( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel for the contesting R. 1

( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal corresponds to the sole applicant in the said WC No. 135 of 2001, of the file of the said Commissioner. Rl and r2, herein correspond, respectively, to Rl and R. 2 therein.

( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that WC, lest, so specified.

( 7 ) THE Sole applicant filed the said wc No. 135 of 2001, before the said commissioner, against R. 1 and R. 2, under section 22 of Workmen s Compensation act, 1923 (Enactment of 1923) for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 in respect of the in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document