ABDUL KARIM Vs. KUNJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First applicant in W.C.C. No.41/86 is the appellant. Challenge in this appeal is against modification of the order originally passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 31-12-1986 granting Rs. 1,06,257/60 to the appellant as well as to the 3rd respondent herein on account of the death of the son of the 2nd applicant. The original order was passed taking into consideration the wages of the deceased workman at the rate of Rs.1,200/- p.m. The only evidence was that of the applicants regarding the salary of deceased workman. The 2nd respondent herein even though was made opposite party No.2 remained ex parte and ultimately the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed the opposite party No.2 to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,06,257/60 to wards compensation for the death of the son of the 2nd applicant. It is seen that the 2nd opposite party made an application dated 8-9-1987 along with a petition requesting to issue a revised order on the ground that Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the monthly wages of the deceased workman at the rate of Rs. 1200/- p.m. whereas as per the provisions contained under Explanation II to S.4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 a monthly wages should have been limited to Rs. 1,000/-. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner accepted the above contention and issued modified order on 17-9-1987. Admittedly not even a notice was issued to the applicants before the original order was modified.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to modify the order in the manner in which it was done under the impugned order. It is further submitted that the order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice also. On the other hand, it is contended by the Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent, that the Commissioner has power to rectify a mistake as provided under R.32(2) of the Kerala Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1958. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent relied on two decisions in support of his contention, viz., Intra Chemicals and Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupa Narain, 1985 ACJ 709, and Mohammed Koya v. Balan, 1987 (1) KLT 18 .

(3.) The relevant rule reads as follows:-