Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Barman, J.
CENTRAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
DORAI RAJ - Respondent
M. A. 85 Of 1955
Decided On : JANUARY 30, 1959
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - INTERPRETATION - JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER - ATTEMPT AT SETTLEMENT - CONDITION PRECEDENT - OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT BASED ON SCHEDULE IV - REASONABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Workman met with an accident while welding, resulting in injuries and permanent disability. He filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner found the employer liable and awarded compensation. The employer appealed, challenging the maintainability of the appeal and the Commissioner's order on merits.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appeal was not maintainable as the employer failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing the compensation amount with the Commissioner as per the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. 2. No substantial question of law was involved in the appeal, as the Commissioner did not misdirect himself and there was no other substantial question of law. 3. The Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, as the requirement of an attempt at settlement under Section 22 of the Act was not a condition precedent to the Commissioner's jurisdiction. 4. The employer had reasonable opportunity to produce evidence, as the Commissioner adjourned the matter several times at the employer's request and allowed the employer to examine the doctor witness. 5. The quantum of compensation awarded was reasonable, as it was based on the assessment of permanent disability under Schedule IV of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was maintainable in the absence of a certificate of deposit of compensation amount. 2. Whether there was a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 3. Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the claim without an attempt at settlement. 4. Whether the employer was denied a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence. 5. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded was reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which requires the employer to deposit the compensation amount with the Commissioner before filing an appeal, is mandatory and not merely directory. 2. The phrase 'substantial question of law' in the first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act should be given a wider construction than under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and includes cases where the Commissioner has clearly misdirected himself on a question of law. 3. Section 22 of the Act, which provides for an attempt at settlement before filing a claim, does not make such attempt a condition precedent to the Commissioner's jurisdiction. 4. The Commissioner has the discretion to grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, and the employer was given such opportunity in this case. 5. The quantum of compensation awarded under Schedule IV of the Act is reasonable, as it is based on the assessment of permanent disability.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the Commissioner's order.
S. BARMAN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the employer appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923) from an order of the Commissioner under the said Act, finding the employer-appellant liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,016/- to the workman who is the respondent in the present appeal.
( 2 ) THE facts shortly are these; On May 9 1954, the workman-respondent was a welder under the employer appellant, the Central Engineering Corporation, the then contractor for the Hirakud Dam project represented by the Executive Engingeer, Quarry Division, Hirakud Colony. On the date of the incident at about 5 A. M. the workman-respondent met with an accident, while he was welding two plates in the crusher by the side of the belt in the circumstances stated by him. The workman-respondent got two injuries one on the shoulder blade and the another on the left arm which was completely disabled. After having been given necessary first-aid as an out-door patient, he was admitted into the Hirakud Hospital as an in door patient and he stayed there for 3 1 /2 months. Thereafter he submitted his claim under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The employer-appellant in due course, tiled an objection disclaiming liability to pay compensation on grounds stated in his objection filed. The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act considered, the claim on evidence. On behalf of the workman-respondent two witnesses were called including the workman-respondent himself P. W. 1 and one Pater Mathews P. W. 2. The employer appellant called only one witness being D. W. 1. the indoor doctor. On materials before the said Commissioner he held that personal injury was caused to the workman-respondent in the said accident arising out of and in the course of the employment under the said employer-appellant and that the employer-appellant was liable to pay compensation under the said Act. The basis on which the Commissioner arrives at the figure of Rs. 2,016/- was stated in his order under appeal, on his finding; that the workman was permanently disabled to the extent of 60 per cent. He therefore, assessed the compensation under schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the employer-appellant.
( 3 ) MR. G. Rath, the learned counsel appearing for the workman-respondent, took a preliminary point as to the maintainability of the appeal. His contention was that no certificate by the Com-misioner to the effect that the employer-appellant had deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against, having accompanied the memorandum of appeal as required by the third proviso to Section 30 (1) of the said Act, the appeal did not lie, for according to him, the proviso is mandatory and not merely directory. My attention was drawn to the express language in the proviso that "no appeal shall lie unless. . " In support of his contention Mr. G. Rath cited before me a decision of the Calcutta High Court in B. P. Nandy v. General Manager, East India Rly-AIR 1954 Cal 453. Where the Chief Justice Chakra-varty delivering the judgment dealt with the principle underlying the third proviso in Section 30 (1) of the Act. The principle of Section 30 is that if the appeal be such that by it the workman's right to the compensation awarded to him is placed in jeopardy, security for the workman must be provided for by the deposit of the amount of compensation and such a deposit would be essential to the maintainability of the appeal. If on the other hand, the workman's right to the compensation awarded does not come into question in the appeal at all, there is no risk to the workman's getting the compensation awarded to him and there is thus no necessity for requiring anyone, preferring such an appeal to deposit the compensation money. In the present case, it was clearly an order in favour of the workman-respondent who was awarded by the Commissione
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
