SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. Vs. ISHAK MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO short grounds are strongly urged with great vehemence by appellants' counsel to impugn the Award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Court.

(2.) SHRI Sinha Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants, bas firstly submitted that the Award is vitiated for non -compliance by the Court below with the provisions of Rules 23 and 25 of the Workmens' Compensation (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1962, for short, the 'Rules', He has also submitted that the learned Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in making the Award by admitting in evidence medical certificates without the doctors being examined in proof thereof. Counsel has cited further case -law to which I shall advert in due course.

(3.) THE Commissioner, by the language of Rule 26, is saddled with the duty to consider whether the requirement of Rules 23 and 2 are to be dispensed with in any particular case. Indeed, notice to the opposite party is ordered when the Commissioner does not dismiss the application under Rules 24 or 25, after examining the applicant or holding preliminary enquiry into the application. Indeed, before proceeding under Rule 26, if the Commissioner has not proceeded under Rule 23 or 25, he had to make an order dispensing with the "examination" or the "enquiry" contemplated thereunder. Although Rule 26 does nut explicitly contemplate such a requirement, it is so contemplate by the principles of natural justice and indeed by the constitutional imperatives of Arts. 39 (e), 39 -A and 42. Indeed, any other view would make Rules 23 and 25 otiose besides impairing the right of parties to fair trial Recall I must, also, the duty of the Court not to construe any particular statutory provision in isolation but in its context and setting and to read it meaningfully to fulfil the object and purpose of the enactment itself.