M RAHIMKAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION R T O OFFICE COMPOUND COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has already suffered by an order in w. C. Case No. 112 of 1993 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a writ of declaration declaring the third proviso to section 30 (1) of Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently seeks direction to set aside the order in W. C. Case no. 112 of 1993 dated 11. 12. 1996.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to the petitioner, he is a Diploma Holder in electrical Engineering and running a small Electrical Works shop doing rewinding of electrical motors and repairing of electrical appliances and job works. After starting of the factory, the second respondent management started giving job works to him for motor rewinding. THE second respondent engaged some persons including the deceased Sivalingam the husband of the third respondent to do some civil repair work on the building on 20. 5. 1993 and the said sivalingam is said to have slipped from the scaffolding and his left leg got into the window panel and succumbed to his injuries on the very same day. Taking advantage of his tender with the second respondent, the third respondent filed a claim for compensation before the first respondent. THE first respondent after hearing the parties, passed an award holding that the deceased sivalingam was employed under the petitioner and he died on 20. 5. 1993 due to the accident. THE first respondent has also quantified the compensation as Rs. 81,540 payable by the petitioner to the third respondent.

(3.) WITH regard to third proviso to Section 30 (1), according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said condition is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submitted that the proviso uses the word appellant which means even a person who is not an employer like the petitioner in this case has to deposit the amount even though he may not be an employer. 1 am unable to accept event the second contention also, since admittedly he was also one of the parties before the Commissioner, for Workmen's Compensation. In pursuance of notice from the said authority the petitioner filed a counter statement. He was represented by a counsel. He had an opportunity to put forward his case and the authority after considering the petitioner's case, passed an award holding that the deceased was an employee under the petitioner and directed to pay the amount. In those circumstance, since he being an aggrieved person against the award as per Section 30 (1), an opportunity is given to him to file an appeal before this Court and in the appeal, it is always open to him to canvass the finding of the authority. As already stated, the Act is intended to benefit the victims of the workmen who suffer injuries during the course of employment and to help the legal heirs of the deceased workmen. Under the scheme of the Act, any serious injury to the workman has to be compensated quickly. The procedure contemplated under the Act is also summary in nature. The selection of the employment to which the Act is applicable, is indicative of an application of mind on the part of the authorities to all the relevant factors. Segments of accident prone activity are particularly noted where a workman plods along hazardous precipiece if potential injury. It is only proper that he or his family is protected by quick first aids or effective treatment. Medical treatment is by itself insufficient. Economic treatment is of as much value. WITHout complying with the order the employer is allowed to file an appeal and the said appeal is entertained by this Court, it will take longer time for disposal. In order to avoid the above contingency, Parliament though that before filing an appeal, the employer against whom an award has been passed under the provisions of the Act has to deposit the amount and enclose the receipt along with the memorandum of grounds of appeal. 1 am of the view that in a sense it protects the affected employee or the legal heirs of the deceased employee. (Emphasis supplied) The workman can feel secure about the compensation payable to him by this statutory insistence. Viewed from the point of view of the employer, it is not difficult for him to secure in these days necessary financial aid from the authority or institutions handling money. The inconvenience caused in the process is no reason to strike down the statutory provision. The situation would not however, justify invalidating the proviso to section 30 which requires deposit of compensation before resorting to a leisurely appeal.