ABDUL RASHID Vs. HANUMAN OIL AND RICE MILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petn of revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against an order of the D.C. Sibsagar, dated 13 -9 -1948 This order was passed by him In his capacity as Comr under the Workmen's Compensation Act. By a letter dated, 16 -9 -1948, the petnr was informed through the President, Jorhat Mill Mazdur Sangha that the accident in question was due to his negligence & as such he was not entitled to compensation. The order evidently was made before the date of the commedication above referred to. It appeared on the Order Sheet & in point of fact it was originally a note put up for the perusal of the Comr. The opinion it embodied was to the effect that the accident complained of was due to the negligence of the petnr. This note was signed by the Comr. & it was on this basis that the petnr was later informed that he had no veiled claim to compensation.

(2.) THE petnr's case is that he presented an appln under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the Ct of the D.C. Sibsagar, claiming compensation against Hanuman Oil & Rice Mill of Jorhat represented by its proprietors Udonia Agarwalla & Ghanshyam Das Agarwalla on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of & in the course of his employment. This petn, it is stated, was summarily dismissed. The petnr was not heard at all. He was not given any opportunity to support his petn by any evidence. The order was passed in his absence. The order also does not refer to any material on which it is based. It was really a note from a Ministerial Officer of the Ct. It was converted into an order by the Comr's signature. The learned counsel for the petnr in these circumstances alleges that the order is wholly without jurisdiction. It cannot be treated as an order covered by Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act & that it is, therefore open to this Ct to interfere in revision even though no appeal was preferred against the order dismissing the petn.

(3.) THE order in question is apparently opposed to the principles of natural justice. It has also been passed in contumacious disregard of the provisions contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has not made any effort to show that the Comr had any power to dismiss the petn without affording any opportunity to the petnr to substantiate his allegation contained in this petn. The order itself was passed in his absence & the contents of the order disclose 'that the Comr did not apply his mind to the case. He had no material before him for coming to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of the petnr himself. The order apparently involves a flagrant abuse of jurisdiction which has occasioned manifest in justice. The order in these circumstances cannot be regarded as falling under any clause of Section 30 of the Act. In our opinion it is altogether null & void.