1. The appellants call in question the award dated 28.06.2007, whereby the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the appeal has held the respondent No.1 entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.4,44,852/- on account of injuries/ disability suffered during the course of his employment. The appeal has been filed against the following factual backdrop.

2. The respondent No.1 is an employee of Power Development Department (PDD) and posted as Lineman at Dooru. The respondent No.1 on 24.12.2005 while repairing electric transformer at Dooru received electric shock and sustained injuries on his left leg. A first information report of the occurrence was registered on 24.12.2005 itself at local police station. The respondent No.1 was shifted by his colleagues to SKIMS where he was hospitalized and operated upon. The respondent No.1 after getting discharged from the hospital filed a claim petition on 24.06.2006 under Workmens Compensation Act before the Commissioner under the Act/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anantnag.

3. The appellant in his objections to the claim petition admitted that the respondent No.1 was an employee of the department but sought to wriggle out of responsibility to pay any compensation on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not posted at the place of occurrence and thus the appellant had not sustained injuries during the course of his employment. In other words the appellants case before the Commissioner under the Act was that the respondent No.1 had on his own gone to a place to repair a transformer, which fell beyond his area / jurisdiction and thus was guilty of negligence. The Commissioner under the Act, having regard to the rival contentions of the parties settled following three issues:

"1. Whether the accident has occurred in or out of the employment?

2. Whether he is entitled to any compensation?

3. If so to what extent?"

4. The claimant examined four witnesses, all employees of the appellant to substantiate his claim. The appellants on the other hand did not adduce any evidence to either rebut and controvert the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 or to substantiate the plea raised in the objections. The respondent No.2 after going through the evidence decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the appellants and answered issue No.3 by holding the respondent No.1 to be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.4,44,852/- as compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant as a result of the electric shock.

5. The award is impugned on the grounds that the respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 at the time of accident was posted at Nadoora and not at Dooru where the respondent No.1 had gone to repair the transformer. It is urged that the respondent No.2 ignored to take note of other objections taken before it by the appellant. The award is said to have been not passed in accordance with law governing the subject. It is insisted that the respondent No.2 failed to settle important issues including the issue whether the respondent No.1 was dis-entitled from any compensation as his income was not reduced because the respondent No.1 continued to receive salary from the appellant. That the respondent No.1 was not posted at the place where the accident had taken place is said to have also escaped attention at the time of settlement of issues. The issue regarding failure of the respondent No.2 to issue notice to the appellant and to ask for departmental investigation within the meaning of Rule 33 (A.G. Electric Rules) is also said to have been of pivotal importance and not framed by the Commissioner under the Act. The Commissioner under the Act is said to have exceeded the jurisdiction and without any material on the file rushed to the conclusions and passed the award.

6. Heard.

It needs to be pointed out at the threshold that the appeal from order(s) of a Commissioner under the Act including an order awarding compensation enume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document