KHEMKARAN SANODIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 made an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation for the death of one Bishandayal Bandewar, alleging that he died in the course of employment under the petitioner. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by the order dated 7.10.2004, allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,54,160 along with interest.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner on several grounds. The first ground is that Bishan- dayal Bandewar was not his employee. The second ground is that he was not given due opportunity to contest the claim. The third ground is that the compensation awarded is excessive and contrary to evidence. He, therefore, wants to challenge the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by filing an appeal in this court under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short). He states that the third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act (inserted by Act 15 of 1933) requiring that the entire amount due under the order should be deposited before filing an appeal is coming in his way, as he has no funds to comply with the said condition. The petitioner contends that the said provision is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and denies him an effective remedy of appeal, as it is impossible for him to find the amount for the deposit. He has, therefore, filed this petition seeking a declaration that the said third proviso to section 30 (1) of the Act as unconstitutional. The said proviso reads as under:

(3.) In State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., AIR 1996 SC 1627, Apex Court pointed out that a law can be struck down by courts only on the ground of lack of legislative competence or violation of any fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision. It was observed that no enactment can be struck down just by saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable, and some or the other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. It was further observed that merely because a court considers a provision to be unjustified, it cannot be struck down.