BHAGWANDAS Vs. PYARELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section (sic) Workmen's Compensation Act by Bhagwan (sic) Sureshchandra Ginning Factory Sendhwa again the order of the Commissioner for Work Compensation, by which the Appellant was dir to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 735/ - facts of the case are briefly as follows:

(2.) ON 10 -2 -1949 Radhelal Jaiswal, Ge (sic) Secretary. Majdoor Congress Indore, wrote to commissioner for Workmen's Compensation one Pyarelal of Anjad lost his right thumb in accident while working in Bhagwandas Ginn (sic) Factory, at Sendhwa; hence compensation awarded to Pyarelal. After several notices: Defendant appeared and the Cominissioner; Workmen's Compensation awarded Pyarelal pensation of Rs. 735/ -. Being aggrieved by, order the Defendant has filed this appeal. A preliminary objection has been raised the Respondent that as no substantial question law is involved in the appeal, this appeal cannot (sic) be entertained. Section 30, Workmen's Compensation (sic) Act contains a proviso which reads thus(sic)

(3.) THIS appeal can be rejected only on the round (sic) that it does not involve a substantial question of law. But even on merits this appeal cannot succeed. The counsel for the Appellant has used several points. His first contention is that no notice was given under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act, the claim cannot be entered. This contention has no force. Section 10, previso (sic)(b) clearly states that if the employer (sic) any one of the several employers or any per (sic) responsible to the employer for the managers I any branch of the trade or business in such the injured workman was employed had wages of the accident from any other source or about the time when it occurred want source shall not be a bar to the entertainment of the (sic) a claim. That the Appellant had knowledge of (sic) accident is clear from his own written statement. He states clearly in his written statement that he felt grieved at the loss of Respondent's thumb and. that he incurred sufficient expender (sic) on that account. This contention therefore, has (sic) no substance.