Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. Respondent has been served way back for 11.9.2013. Today we are in March, 2014 i.e. six months after. An adjournment is asked for on behalf of the respondent for reading the case file. I refuse to grant the same, inasmuch as, it is necessary that counsel must not seek adjournment only for convenience on the ground that they are not prepared although they had sufficient time. This attitude is responsible for unnecessary pendency in courts. Besides, the facts of this case as stated below will show that the prayer for adjournment is not benign.

2. This first appeal is filed by the appellant (alleged employer) against the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 25.7.2013 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

3. The case as put up by the respondent was that he was appointed by the appellant since October, 2004 for doing flour kneading work and on 2.12.2004, at about 9.30 a.m when he was working on an electronic machine of flour kneading on the directions of Sh. Palaiji Junior of Sh. Prakashnandji, the respondent met with an accident as his right hand came under the machine. It