MANI Vs. COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Mohanan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mathew George Vadakkel, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The issue arises under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners are the dependents of one Manikandan who died in an accident during and in the course of employment of third respondent. The claim filed by the petitioners resulted in Ext.P1 Award determining the compensation payable to the petitioners at Rs. 9,05,520/- with 12% interest from the date of accident till realisation. It is matter of record that the petitioners filed I.A. No. 24 of 2019 praying for recording compromise said to have been arrived at out of the Court and thereafter relieve the third respondent from further obligation under Ext.P1. The first respondent through Ext.P5 dismissed I.A. No. 24 of 2019. The main ground adverted to and also relied on by the first respondent to refuse the prayer of the petitioners for recording the compromise said to have been arrived at out of the Court as impermissible is under Section 8 of the Act. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

(3.) Mr. P.K. Mohanan contends that the petitioners being the dependents of deceased employee have seen to a practical reason in settling the dispute with the third respondent out of Court for a lumpsum of Rs. 12 lakh representing the compensation as well as the interest payable to the dependents. Though Section 8, in terms, prohibits giving recognition to such out of Court settlements, he places reliance on Section 28 which reads as follows: