MAKHAN LAL MARWARI Vs. AUDH BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an order dated the 1st December, 1953, passed by the Commissioner under that Act and has arisen under the following circumstances:

(2.) The respondent Avadh Bihari Lal claimed that he was a workman and was working as a fitter on the fodder-cutting machine owned and worked by the appellant. He was working at it on 1-1-1953 and cutting fodder when his right arm accidentally slipped into the machine and five fingers were cut off and his right arm was also rendered useless. Admittedly, he was thereafter treated for this injury in the hospital but the fingers were finally lost. On 30-1-1953 Avadh Bihari Lal moved the Labour Commiasioner for awarding the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for the aforesaid injury. This application was later sent By the Labour Commissioner to the District Magistrate, Sitapur, on 17-2-1953 for awarding Compensation to Avadh Bihari Lal under the Act. As, however, this application was not considered to be in proper form by the Additional District Magistrate, who was Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Avadh Bihari Lal was asked on 23-2-1953 to present a formal application which he did on 20-3-1953,

(3.) On this latter application Makhan Lal was asked to file his reply which after a number of postponements he did on 6-8-1953. It was stated in the application dated 20-3-1953 that Avadh Bihari Lal was an operator at the said fodder cutting machine on Rs. 47/- a month. The details of the accident were also given in it and it was further stated that the applicant had asked Makhan Lal to give him compensation but the latter was avoiding it and there was no alternative but to apply for payment of compensation under the above Act. In the written statement filed by Makhan Lal the fact of the accident was admitted. It was also admitted that the five fingers of the right hand of the applicant were cut oft while he was working at the machine on 1-1-1953. It was, however, disputed that the applicant was an employee of the appellant as also his being a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The applicant had alleged that the accident took place in the presence of the appellant obviously intending thereby to show that the circumstances including the time and occasion of the accident were within the personal knowledge of the appellant. The appellant in his turn dia not admit that he was present at the time of the accident but he nevertheless admitted that he was sent for from a near-by shop where he was at the moment and came to know on arrival the circumstances in which the accident took place. This aspect of the case will be material when considering the objection by the appellant with regard to the compliance of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, I shall revert to it in due course.