MEHBOOB ABDULBHAI SAIYAD Vs. PARSHWANATH INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the appellant and Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the concerned respondent. Perused the record.

(2.) Considering the provision of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the W.C. Act" for short), it would be necessary to frame substantial question of law since the appeal is already admitted long back in the year 2001 i.e. before 17 years. On verification of record and considering details, the substantial question of law would arise thus: "Whether Commissioner can rely upon documents which are not proved on record?"

(3.) The appellant herein is an original claimant whereas respondents are original opponents before Commissioner under the W.C. Act and Labour Court of Bhavnagar in non-fatal workman compensation case No.9/1998. The appellant has preferred such application under the W.C. Act claiming Rs. 2,32,828- 50 Paisa towards compensation from the opponents contending that he received injuries when he was working in the factory of the opponents. It is his case that on 27.12.1997 when he was working on the machine in the factory of the opponent, another employee had used a hammer to hit the iron pipe, during such hammering because of the piece of iron, hit the eyes of the appellant and he received serious injuries on his left eye.