VISHAL THEATOR Vs. WORKMEN COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.4.2000 by which the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Azamgarh has recalled his earlier order dated 25.8.1999 on the Review Application dated 20.9.1999 filed by the respondent No. 2. The case of the respondent No. 2 was that her husband Sundar Yadav was employed as an Announcer under M/s. Vishal Theatre and he died on 24.8.1994 in the premises itself. It is further stated that he was aged about 40 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1000/- at the time of his death. Hence an application was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, respondent No. 1 after notices were issued to the parties, framed certain issues. After hearing the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation held that at one place in the evidence of the respondent No. 2 the name of her husband was mentioned as Sundar son of Muhashwar, village Hafizpur and at another place it was mentioned as Sunnar son of Munnar, village Balrampur and at 3rd place it was mentioned as Sundar son of Munnar, Vishal Talkies. The Commissioner, therefore, held that the real identity of the husband of the respondent No. 2 was not determinable in view of the confusing facts. Besides, he also held that in the course of the proceedings the brother of the deceased, one Lalji Yadav was never produced in evidence although it was stated that he was the real brother of the deceased and if he had been produced in evidence, he could have testified as to the real identity of the deceased. The respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the S.D.M. in his recommendatory letter has stated that the deceased Sundar was working as Announcer under the petitioner M/s. Vishal Theatre but no prove or certificate to that effect has been filed by the S.D.M. and therefore, mere recommendatory letter of the S.D.M. cannot be taken on record as evidence of the real identity of the deceased. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 25.8.1999 held that the deceased Sundar was not an employee of the petitioner, M/s. Vishal Theatre and that the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is therefore, not maintainable and he accordingly dismissed the application.

(2.) Subsequently, a review application was filed on 20.9.1999 by the widow of the deceased Smt. Mamta, respondent No. 2 wherein she has sought review of the earlier order dated 25.8.1999. This application dated 20.9.1999 has been accepted by respondent No. 1 and he has set aside his earlier order dated 25.8.1999 and fixed the case for arguments on 22.4.2000 by the impugned order dated 10.4.2000. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Notices were issued to the respondents. An affidavit of service on respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has been filed. As per the office report dated 4.9.2012 the registered notice sent by the office has also not been returned back. In the circumstances, service upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be deemed to be sufficient.