Appeal under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the proceedings in R.C.No.C/4166/2007 dated 19/04/2008 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Dy. Commissioner of Labour Zone, II Eluru.

It is unfortunate, if not shocking, that the Government in Labour Department had entrusted the powers of adjudication under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) to an individual, who did not have even the basic understanding of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The result is that the Officer passed an order in an application filed under the Act in a manner which cannot be expected even from an illiterate or layman. The consequences thereof had to be suffered by the appellants herein.

He sole respondent herein filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour claiming compensation. She pleaded that her husband Sri P. Sitarama Rao, was employed as Upper Division Clerk, with the appellants and that in a fatal accident that occurred on 07.04.2007, he died. On account of there not being the regular incumbent, a Full Additional Charge was entrusted to another Officer, whose name is not clear from the record. The claim was not even numbered. Straight away a notice, dated 25.05.2008, appears to have been issued requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,12,940/-. The appellants addressed a letter dated 14.03.2008, to the Commissioner requesting him to furnish the particulars. The Commissioner, in turn, issued the notice dated 19.04.2008, requiring the appellants to deposit the said amount. In the notice, it was stated that the age of the deceased was 49 years; he was drawing salary of Rs.29,321/-, per month, limited to Rs.4,000/- as per Section 4 of the Act, and indicating the formula. Stating that the appellants did not respond to the notice, the Commissioner issued memo dated 27.11.2008 requiring the appellants to deposit the amount immediately. He threatened the appellants with action under Section 4-A of the Act, in case of failure. The appellants challenge the same.

Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Officer, who took up the matter, lacked the fundamental knowledge of the procedure involved and that he has straight away issued the notice, without even numbering the case. He contends that the Official, who passed the order, bypassed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and did not follow the basic tenets of adjudication.

Sri Meka Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in his understanding of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Commissioner passed the order, duly taking into account, the age and wages and applying the prescribed formula. He contends that no interference is warranted.

The Act is of not any recent origin, so that one can assume lack of proper understanding on the part of the Officers, who are required to enforce the provisions of the Legislation. It is in existence for the past about 9 decades. It is almost a complete code for determination of the claims of the workmen, who are injured or the dependants of the workmen, who died in the course of employment. The Act contains the provisions that prescribe the formula for determination of compensation, the nature of injuries and the corresponding disability, the procedure to be followed for determination of the claims etc.

Section 20 of the Act provides for appointment of Commissioners; Section 22 prescribes the form of application to be made for claiming compensation; and Section 23 confers the power of a civil Court as well as the criminal Court, on certain aspects upon the Commissioner. Section 24 mandates that before any further steps are taken, the appearance of the opposite party must be ensured and the method of recording of evidence is indicated in Section 25.

Added to that, Chapter V of the Workmen’s Compensation (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1953