T LINGAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WORKMENS COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 8) 1923. The notice issued by the respondentCommissioner for Workmen's compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal is challenged in this writ petition,

(2.) The petitioner is working as N.M.R. helper in the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation at Suddavagu L.I. Scheme of Nirmal Division. He met with an accident by coming into contact with high voltage current on 23-3-85. His age is about 28 years. The corporation paid him a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and also agreed to give employment in higher category fixing his scale of pay at Rs. 390-10-460-15-625 with an initial pay of Rs. 714/- per mensem in full settlement of all and every claim under the Workmen's compensation Act. Both the management and the petitioner-workman filed a memorandum of agreement entered into between them before the respondent herein. The respondent is given power under the Act either to refuse to record the memorandum or record it. But the procedure adopted by him, according to the petitioner is peculiar inasmuch as he directed rhe management to pay Rs. 21, 529-20 to the injured workman and file the agreement in Form N for its registration. This procedure was objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, when once an application is filed under Form L.. he must issue notice under Rule 49 under workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 if he does not consider that he should refuse to record memorandum or proceed under Rule 50 of the above Rules if he considers that he should refuse to record memorandum. Rules 49 and 50 if read together clearly discloses that proper notice should be issued in the prescribed form to the parties indicating whether he proposes to accord permission or reject the same. These rules must be read with Sections 17 and 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. They are mennt to prevent the workmen from Contracting out the benefits conferred on them. In order to prevent defeat of conferment of benefits given by the statute, Section 28 enjoins on the Commissioner a duty to register the agreement after following the procedure. A reading of these sections clearly discloses that a workman cannot relinquish compensation and any agreement so entered into must secure the satisfaction of the Commissioner either in the case where the claim is settled by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise. It also safeguards the workmen's rights by requiring such registration when the claimant is a woman or a person under legal disability. These two provisions read with the rule enjoins on the commissioner to apply his mind and see whether the compensation sanctioned under the provisions of the Act is in any way defeated by any settlement of claim by the employer. If he is satisfied that it is not in the interests of the workmen, he can refuse to register.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner without deciding the question whether the settlement agreed to between the parties is beneficial to the workman or not directed the employer to pay a compensation or Rs. 21,529-20 towards the injuries suffered by the workman. This the learned counsel says is not in accordance with law both on factual basis and also on the procedure followed The petitioner is only a casual labourer and described as N.M R. helper in the employment of A.P State Irrigation Development Corporation. Under the agreement besides the monetary benefit of Rs. 5,000/-, he was given employment in the Corporation with a starting salary of Rs. 741/- per month which secures him more than Rs. 21,000/- in less than three years. It also benefits him more as he is given permanent employment in the Corporation. Hence the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Commissioner failed to apply his rained to the terms of agreement which are more beneficial to the workman and the direction to the management that Rs. 21,529-20 must be paid is clearly illegal.