MOHINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER UNDER WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a Mechanic in the respondent department had filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29th October, 1987 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') and for a further direction to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as a Mechanic with the respondent department at Sonepat Depot had received personal injuries by an accident which took place on 13th April, 1984 in the course of employment. On the day of the accident, when the petitioner was repairing the bus, the Jack slipped and its Chasis fell on the left hand of the petitioner as a result of which he received serious permanent injury rendering three fingers of his left hand permanently disabled. Thus the petitioner subtained 40 per cent disability. The notice of this accident was given by the petitioner to the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonepat on 12th June, 1984. As the respondent department did not pay any compensation to the petitioner, he was left with no alternative but to file the application for compensation against the Haryana State Roadways, Sonepat Depot on 31st July, 1986 (Annexure P/2) wherein it was stated that he met with an accident on 13th April, 1984 and suffered 40 per cent permanent disability and was thus entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,800. His claim was registered by the office, in the Register of claims and a notice was issued to the respondent for proceeding with the case. The respondent filed written statement and the following issue was framed. Whether the claim of the petitioner is barred by time and if so, what effect ? The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act refused to entertain the claim on the ground that the same was not made within the period of limitation i. e. two years and rejected the same without any proceedings.

(3.) THE writ petition was admitted on 13th May, 1988 but the respondent had not filed any written statement. The facts of the case thus remain uncontroverted. Moreso, at the time of final hearing of the petition, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-state.