CHELLAPPAN Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the respondent in an application filed by the legal representative of a deceased workman claiming workmen's compensation. Claim was that one Raveendran employed as a mahout under the respondent who had died in the course of his work on 1.1.1993. After examining the contentions of the parties and scanning through the evidence that had been placed, the Commissioner by Ext. P-4 order dated 29.6.2000 held that it was a case where there was death of workman during the course of his employment. A compensation of Rs. 63,920/- with interest was directed as payable. This order is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) PETITIONER has averred that since there was no substantial question of law to be agitated about the issue (see para 6 of the original petition) and as the order passed was erroneous he had no chance to file an appeal successfully and therefore, he has approached this Court by filing this original petition. It has also been submitted that since it is a condition precedent that the amount ordered to be paid as compensation had to be deposited, it was a condition which effectively negatived the right of appeal under Section 30 of the Act. One of the prayers in this original petition is to strike down Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and to declare the first and third provisos to the above section as unconstitutional, ultra vim and inoperative.

(3.) AS regard the illusory remedy of an appeal, which insisted on payment of the decreed amount in full as a pre-condition, Counsel brought to my notice a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in Sikkim Ayurvedic (P) Ltd. v. Pyari Tamangni and Ors. 1996 (3) LLJ 844. Council also had referred to the decision reported in Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. U.P. Forest Corporation, pointing out that alternate remedy was not always a reason to hold that jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked.