M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE above CMA arises out of certain proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provisions of the Workmen s Compensation act, 1923 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The second respondent was employed by the Appellant Company as a Driver and while working on duty, there was an accident on 12-8-1979 when certain coal fell into his eyes. The matter was reported to the Assistant Engineer Sri Mala Kondaiah and ther after, the 2nd respondent was referred to the Medical Wing of the appellantcompany. However, (he 2nd respondent applied for leave on 2-9-1979 and continued to be on leave till 7-9-1979 and thereafter did not report to duty. On the ground that he was absent without leave, his name name was struck off on 19-9-1979 from the rolls of the Company. The 2nd respondent made a representat. on one 12-2-1981 to the mployer that by reason of the accident which occurred on 12-8-1979, he had lost both his eyes and that therefore, compensanon may be paid to him under the Act. As the said representation did not succeed, the second respondent filed an appeal on 21-7-1981 before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Warangal. The appellant company filed a counter contending that no injury to the eyes of the second respondent occurred while he was in service; that even if the second respondent received such an injury, it could have been only after the termination of his services on 19-9-1979 and that the application made by the second respondent to the Commissioner was a belated one. It further contended that the second respondent failed to take any medical aid from the Hospital attached to the Company and that therefore, the application should be rejected.

( 2 ) THE Commissioner accepted the case of the second respondent that the accident occurred while the latter was an employee and had occurred during the course of employment. Taking the monthly wages of the second respondent as Rs. 400/- per month, the Commissioner granted an order for rs. 26,880/- in favour of the second respondent. Against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

( 3 ) IN this appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the injury to the eyes of the second respondent did not occur while he was in office and that in any event, there was substantial delay in the tiling of the application and that the Commissioner erred in granting the compensation of Rs. 26,880/ -.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri Venkataramulu that the findings of the Commissioner are correct. He also filed CMP 8671 /86 for receiving additional evidence, marking the said documents as Exs. A-1 to A-11 in this appeal. He also filed CMPSR. No. 16193/86 for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing cross objections. According to him, the learned Commissioner proceeded on a wrong assumption that the second respondent was receiving wages only in a sum of Rs. 400/- per month whereas the statement of the second respondent in his petition before the Commissioner was that half of his salary was rs. 400/- per month. It is also argued that the compensation is payable as per the table now given under the Workmen s Compensation (Amendment) act, 1984 (Act 22 of 1984) which has come into force with effect from 1-7-84. It is further argued that the said amount is restrospective.

( 5 ) IN reply thereto, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the cross objections are not maintainable in an appeal under sec. 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act and also that the amount above referred is not retrospective.

( 6 ) THE points for consideration are : (1) Whether the injury to thesecond respondent s eyes occurred while he was in service of the appellant; (2) Whether cross-objections can be entertained in an appeal filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act; (3) Whether the amendment to Sec. 4 made in the Workmen s compensation Act by Act 22 of 1984 i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document