NANNEY KHAN Vs. A B MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act No. 8 of 1923 (hereafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Act dated 22nd May, 1967, by means of which the appellant was granted a sum of Rs. 1,890.00 by way of compensation, as against the claim for Rs. 5,040.00. In the present appeal, the claim is confined to Rs. 630.00 and the sole ground on which this amount: is claimed, is founded on the notification made in the year 1954 by means of which the Chief Commissioner. Delhi, laid down the rates of the following unskilled category of labourers under section 3(l)fa) of the Minimum Wages Act .-

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents, when questioned by roe, did suggest that perhaps the appellant was a sweeper, but he immediately added that there was no material on the record and that he was not sure if it was so. The appellant's counsel frankly stated that there was no material on the record on this point. It is unfortunate that in the event of the appellant being in fact actually a sweeper, he should have beer) deprived of the amount of compensation which be would legitimately be entitled to, but, for this unhappy situation, he alone is to blame.

(3.) This brings me to another aspect which I consider to be of some importance. In this Court, this appeal has been presented by the appellant through one Shri H. L. Sebgal, who has described himself as an attorney and a social worker. According to clause 8 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court, which still governs this Court, no person whatsoever except Advocates, Vakils or Attorneys can be allowed to act or to plead for or on behalf of any suitor in the High Court, Indrawati v. Hari Ram The Attorneys mentioned in that clause are Attorneys-at- law bracketed with Advocates and Vakils. Had it not been for the fact that the appellant had also thumb-marked the memorandum of appeal, I might have rejected this appel as incompetent. Se that as it may, the workman having not taken advantage of proper legal advice in the proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act, he seems to have lost whatever further benefit he may have been entitled to under the above notification.