The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to receive compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, as per Section 3, cannot be limited or taken away by any other benefits received by the workman or his legal representatives.

V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral). CMP (M) No. 112 of 2003. Heard. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is treated to have been filed in time. The application is disposed of. FAO No. 97 of 2004.

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the appeal be itself taken up for consideration, hearing and final disposal today itself without formally admitting it for hearing.

3. This is a very strange case where, because of a very inept handling by the Commissioner Workmens Compensation, Nahan, Sub Division Nahan, Sirmaur District, the claim petition fifed by the appellants under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 relating to the death of Pawan Kumar deceased has been dismissed and the appellants denied their right of claiming compensation amount on grounds which are wholly, totally and absolutely untenable in law. In fact, I feel dismayed and surprised as to how a person not at all conversant with the basic principles of law was employed and posted as a Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, because not only he demonstrated total ignorance of law, but also decided the two vital issues in the case in a slipshod manner, by giving findings thereupon which are not at all supported by reasons or logic.

4. Pawan Kumar deceased was employed as a Driver by the Social Welfare Department of Himachal Pradesh Government in ICDS Project The following are the undisputed facts and when I say "undisputed" facts, I mean the facts which were squarely admitted by the respondents before the Commissioner- (1) That the accident occurred on 7.7.1998 while Pawan Kumar on duty was driving vehicle No. HP 03 1223 from Solan to Nahan. (2) That it is because of this accident that the death occurred to Pawan Kumar deceased. (3) That this death occurred in the course of his employment with the respondents. The cause of the death was attributable to the factum of employment (4) That the factum of death was also proved and established because of the post-mortem of the body of the deceased conducted on 8th July, 1998. (5) At the time of death the deceased was employed in the Social Welfare Department and was posted in ICDS Project.

4. What was the annual income of the deceased and what was his age perhaps is not borne out from the reading of the judgment and perhaps these two might be the facts which either have not been fully established, or these are not properly reflected in the body of the judgment.

5. The following five Issues were framed by the Commissioner.- "1. Whether the deceased Sh. Pawan Kumar was working under the employment of the respondents and died in an accident while he was discharging his duties? OPP.

2. Whether the accident arise out of or in the course of respondent employment? OPP.

3. Whether compensation amount claimed is due or any part of that amount? OPP.

4. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation as is due? OPP.

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation/if so to what extent? OPR."

6. The Commissioner decided Issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants, but with respect to Issues No. 3 and 4, the following findings were recorded:- "Issue No.3.

7. Whether the respondent is liable for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, firstly this question is to be replied. It is established that the deceased was employed and the family of the deceased was to be compensated, but in this case the petitioner refuted for coming to the witness box. This has also come on record that the legal descendents of the deceased has been compensated as per the provisions of Service Rules. On the basis of the facts on file, this issue is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.4. No, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act."

8. No reasons, no logic, no grounds. How can the legal representatives of the deceased workman be deprived of their right of claiming compensation merely because the petitioners did not choose to c