( 1 ) ONE Bhikhabhai Kalandas a workman working at and doing the work of feeding the huller with paddy in the Flour Mills of the respondent Burjorji Dinshawji Shethna at Ankleshwar received injuries on 8-12-1963 in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He died on the same day as a result of the injuries so received. His widow who is the appellant here made an application to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) under sec. 22 read with sec. 19 of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order for compensation under the Act. The Commissioner held her to be entitled under the provisions of the Act to compensation of Rs. 3000/but has awarded Rs. 1500/by deducting a sum of Rs. 1500/earlier paid by the respondent under circumstances to be presently mentioned The appellant has come to this Court in appeal under section 30 of the Act her grievance being that the Commissioner was in error in ordering a deduction of Rs. 1500/but should have made an order for payment of Rs. 3000/which was the amount of compensation payable

( 2 ) IN the lower Court the respondent raised various contentions. He had contended that the deceased Bhikhabhai Kalanbhai was not a workman within the meaning of the Act that he was not at the time of the accident feeding he huller that the feeding of the huller was not a part of his duties and that at any rate the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. All these contentions do not now arise in this Appeal. Mr. Vin who appears for the respondent concedes that this Court must proceed on the footing that the deceased Bhikhabhai Kalanbhai was a workman in the employment of the respondent and that the injuries were caused to him by reason of an accident arising out and in the course of employment and further that those injuries had resulted in his death. It is not disputed that the monthly wages of the deceased were Rs. 50/and that having regard to sec. 4 of the Act read with Schedule IV to that Act the compensation payable for the death of the deceased was Rs. 3000. 00. It would be payable under the provisions of the Act to the dependant of the deceased and the dependant in the present case would admittedly be the appellant alone. These facts are not now in dispute.

( 3 ) THE dispute centres only round the order of the Commissioner deducting Rs. 1500/from the amount due as compensation. The reasons why Rs. 1500/were ordered to be deducted were these. On 7th March 1964 that is within 4 months after the accident the respondent under a receipt which has been produced at Exh. 24 paid Rs. 1500/to the appellant and her two adult sons Jayantilal and Babubhai. The receipt to which reference will be made in detail later states in effect that the sum of Rs. 1500/was paid out of mercy that is to say ex-gratia and that the heirs had no other legal rights. The payment was not disputed by the appellant. The Commissioner came to the constitution that this receipt was a writing which fell within the class of writings required to be registered with the Commissioner under section 28 (1) of the Act and it not having been registered the provisions of section 29 were attracted. He was of the view that having regard to the provisions of section 29 the respondent was entitled to have this amount of Rs. 1500/deducted from the full amount of compensation which he was liable to pay under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly he made the order under appeal.

( 4 ) MR. G. P. Vyas the learned advocate for the appellant contends that sec. 29 of the Act on the strength of which the Commissioner has ordered the deduction is not attracted at all. He argues that the document Exh. 24 if properly construed amounts to a contracting out of the liability under the Act and is therefore null and void being hit by sec. 17 of the Act. He submits that sec. 28 of the Act would not come into the picture in res