1. This is an appeal by Mohinder Singh, minor, through his mother Sham Kaur against Dial Singh. It is directed against the order dated November 29, 1965 of Mr. N.R. Aggarwal, Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda exercising powers as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. The facts leading to the appeal are as under :

2. The appellant was employed as workman with the respondent. He was working in his cotton ginning factory. He fed the factory with raw cotton. While working in the factory on December 26, 1964, his thumb and index, middle and ring fingers were chopped off. The appellant claimed Rs. 2520/- by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The claim of the appellant was opposed by the respondent. The evidence of the respondent was closed on November. 12, 1965. The case came up for further hearing on November 29, 1965. On that date, the mother of the minor appellant acting as his next- friend entered into compromise with the respondent and agreed to accept all told sum of Rs. 500 as compensation. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the compromise, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Two-fold attack has been levelled against the order of compromise. It is stated that his mother, who is an illiterate old lady, was coerced by the respondent to enter into compromise against her wishes and against the interest of the minor appellant and that in any case by virtue of section 17 of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act), such an agreement is null and void and hence ineffective against the appellant. In this appeal, I cannot pronounce any judgment on the involuntary character of the compromise entered into between the parties as the plea to that effect was not raised before the Commissioner and no finding thereon is before me. It is not necessary for me to do so in the light of the provisions of section 17 of the Act. That section runs as follows :

"Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act."

3. The amount claimed by the appellant in his claim application is Rupees 2520. The amount for which the agreement has been entered into by him with his employer is of Rupees 500. Thus, this agreement of compromise, by which the appellant and the respondent have agreed to settle the figure of Rupees 500 is apart from and independent of the amount to which the appellant may be found entitled on the basis of his claim for compensation lodged by him with the Commissioner. By this agreement of compromise the appellant has relinquished his right of full compensation which he has claimed and to which he may be held entitled from the respondent for the personal injury which he suffered in course of his employment. As the agreement purports to reduce the liability of the respondent to pay compensation under the Act, the agreement of compromise is fully covered by section 17. According to that section, such an agreement of compromise between the parties is null and void. The underlying policy as devised by the legislature and as adumbrated in this section is to protect a workman against the domineering position and influence of an employer and to declare null and void agreements, by which a workman is made to relinquish his right of compensation resulting in reduction of liability of the employer for the compensation, which he is liable to pay under the Act. Unless such agreements could be declared to be null and void, the employees entitled to claim compensation could be made to forgo their right of compensation by being coerced to accept a diminished amount of compensation as desired by the employer. The underlying object of the public policy recognised by this section would be frustrated, i