ASSISTANT ENGINEER MPEB Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, the 'Act', has raised few questions of law of general importance concerning interpretation of some provisions of the Act, on which much light has not been shed so far.

(2.) What is challenged in this appeal is the order dated 9.12.1977 of Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior, acting as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Act. By the impugned order, the Appellants were directed to deposit compensation in that court which has been agreed to be paid by the Appellants for the death of their workman Devendrasingh, who died in an accident on 1.6.1966 in the course of his employment. Learned Commissioner, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties, concluded that non-applicants had agreed to pay compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,800/ - to Keshavsingh (since deceased) who was father of the deceased workman. It has also been held that although the applicant, who was Keshavsingh's son and Devendrasingh's brother, was not a 'dependant' of the deceased workman Devendrasingh, his application to enforce the agreement was maintainable and this view was taken after condoning the delay occurred in making the application which had happened due to non-applicants' fault and not due to negligence or lack of diligence of the applicant.

(3.) In this Court, Appellants' counsel Mr. K.N. Gupta has laboured hard to convince me that the application was not maintainable and further that the amount which has since been deposited with the Commissioner prior to the filing of the appeal, cannot be paid to the Respondent/applicant as he is not a 'dependant' within the meaning of the term defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act. Respondent's counsel Mr. Hirway has supported the impugned order and has further submitted that this Court acting under Article 227 of the Constitution, should make an order u/s 4-A of the Act for penalty and interest to correct the jurisdictional error committed by the Commissioner in not doing so and that for doing so, absence of cross-appeal shall not be treated as a bar. However, I am also of the view that the instant appeal itself, on the finding of the Commissioner, is not maintainable in view of the bar erected by the second proviso to Section 30 as the impugned order of the Commissioner does nothing but "gives effect to an agreement come to between parties".