KAMALA KANTA PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'), the appellant Kamalakanta Pandey challenges the order of the Addl. District Magistrate and Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Boudh -Khondmala, Phulbani directing him to pay Rs. 18,000/ - towards compensation to the widow of the deceased Amar Bisimajhi alias Digal.

(2.) FROM the records, it appears that the proceeding before the Commissioner was initiated on 4 -2 -82 on receipt of the report from the District Labour Officer, Phulbani dated 6 -1 -82 that Amar Bisimajhi who was employed as a mason by Kamalkanta Pandey to do certain work in his house at Hatpada on 3 -12 -81 met with an accident resulting in his death. It was further stated in the report that the incident occurred in course of employment of the deceased. The workman was stated to have worked as a mason on a monthly wage of Rs. 300/ -. The District Labour Officer requested the Commissioner to take necessary action Under Section 10A of the Act. To this report was enclosed a petition dated 28 -12 -81 by one Gabanbisi Majhi, elder brother of the deceased, addressed to the District Labour Officer informing him about the accident which occurred when Amarbisi Majhi was engaged in pulling down a pucca wall in the house of Kamalakanta Pandey. The applicant stated that the deceased left a widow and a minor son aged 4 years who were totally depending on his (deceased) income. The District Labour Officer was requested to make payment to the widow and son of the deceased for their maintenance.

(3.) SRI S.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is unsustainable as it is based on no acceptable material. The learned Counsel pointed out that since both the witnesses, Simanchal Sahu and Bira Naik declined to support the case of the petitioner, the Commissioner should have held that it was not established that the deceased was engaged by the appellant as his workman at the time of accident. The learned Counsel also urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving both the parties opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.