RAMANLAL MADANLAL Vs. BINAPANI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claimant is the mother of the deceased workman. He died from personal injuries received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on the 29th May, 1955.

(2.) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation found as a fact that the workman was employed by Messrs. Ramanlal Madanlal -- partners, Ramanlal Madanlal, the opposite party and that the deceased met with the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. He negatived the contention raised before me that opposite party No. 2 Messrs. G. C. Das and Co. who was not served was the person really responsible for the employment of the deceased. The Commissioner's award was a direction and order upon Ramanlal Madanlal to pay to the claimant Rs. 1800/-.

(3.) Mr. Sanyal appearing for the appellant Ramanlal Madanlal urged two points. One was a point of procedure and the other was a point of fact. Neither of these two points has any substance or merit. His first point is that the rules of procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act do not provide for a claim being made against a firm as such and therefore there was no proper application for compensation. He relied on an unreported decision of this Court delivered by Trevor Harries, C. J. and Banerjee, J. in A. F. O. O. No. 20 of 1951 decided on the 6th April, 1951. That decision. I find, has been doubted by another Division Bench of Chakravartti, C. J. and S. R. Das Gupta, J. in A. F. O. O. No. 127 of 1951 in Sree Ganesh Ata, Dal and Oil Mill v. Amritia. This decision is also unreported.