The court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the injury and the assessment of compensation in accordance with the law, highlighting that technicalities should not hinder the grant of compensation.

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal against Award dated 31.07.2017, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda in favour of respondent No. 1.

2. It is stated in the appeal that the claim petition came to be filed against the appellant under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 received personal injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant while working as Labourer. It was alleged that on 2/11/1999 while the respondent No. 1 was busy in launching scants, the respondent No. 1 was hit by a scant of wood, resulting in facture's of both thumbs of respondent No. 1 and with the result, the respondent No. 1 became disabled. It was alleged that at the time of accident the respondent was earning Rs. 2,000/- PM as wages. It was also alleged that the age of the respondent was 22 years. That after the receipt of the notice, the appellant filed the objections to the claim petition denying employment, accident and liability to pay compensation. That thereafter evidence was led, and ultimately, on 31/07/2017, an award came to be passed. That the appellant is aggrieved of the award dated 31/07/2017 on the following amongst other grounds:

i. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, while passing the award impugned overlooked the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as Act as well as the rules framed thereunder.

ii. That while passing the impugned award, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as ALC has violated the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10 of the Act. That no notice of alleged accident was ever served by the respondent upon the appellant or any of its officers. It is further submitted that the award is completely silent as to the criteria adopted by ALC for determining the wages of the respondent.

iii. That ALC has committed illegality while passing the impugned award as it has failed to appreciate the total failure on the part of respondent to establish his case for grant of compensation.

iv. That the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that though Jammu and kashmir State Forest Corporation was necessary party, yet it was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings before ALC, and, under such circumstances no liability under the award could have been fastened on it.

v. That the award is liable to be set aside as the provisions of the Act were not at all applicable to the facts of the case, the award thus passed by ALC is void and nullity in the eyes of law.

vi. That while passing the impugned award, the ALC has completely ignored the provisions of Section (4) of the Act. The statement of the Doctor whereas on the one hand was unrealistic, unreliable, inadmissible against medical jurisprudence as well as the law and guidelines laid down in the schedule of the Act, on the other hand, it could not have formed the basis for awarding compensation in favour of the respondent. That it was mandatory for ALC to first identify the nature of the injury and then assess compensation in accordance with law as mode of assessment of compensation is different for different injuries. ALC, it seems has granted the compensation as if the injury were of permanent character which fact is against the record and are vehemence denied. That the aforesaid submission has been made without prejudice to the submission already made in the memo of appeal.

vii. ALC while passing the impugned award has virtually offended and violated all the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under

viii. That the devastating contradictions in the pleading and in the evidence of the respondent have been totally ignored by ALC while passing the impugned award.

ix. That without prejudice to the submissions made here in above, it is most respectfully submitted even if the respondent received injury while executing the work as alleged by him in his petition for compensation, the appellant was not liable to pay the