BABU RAM Vs. LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated January 13, 1983, whereby the writ petition challenging the award Annexure P-1 dated April 1, 1975, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, was dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed a claim petition for compensation on behalf of his minor son Roshan Lal allleging that the latter was employed with Babu Ram petitioner at his sugarcane crusher in village Chulkana, Tehsil and district Sonepat. On March 11, 1974, Roshan Lal respondent while working on the sugarcane crusher in the employment of the petitioner met with an accident. His hand was crushed in the crusher and the crushed hand was separated from the body. He prayed that his minor son Roshan Lal be got paid compensation by the petitioner who is the owner of the sugarcane crusher. In pursuance of this claim petition the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act issued notice to the petitioner for April 23, 1974. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner a plea was taken that Roshan Lal was not employed at his sugarcane crusher and that he was merely a volunteer, who was watching the crusher for pleasure and enjoyment sake when he met with an accident. However, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and the Commissioner vide order dated May 1, 1975 copy Annexure P-1, accepted the claim petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,800/- including Rs. 3780/- by way of penalty under Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rs. 460/- by way of interest to Roshan Lal respondent. In the writ petition, an objection was raised on behalf of the claimant that no writ petition as such was maintainable as the order was appealable one and in order to file the appeal the amount was to be deposited first and, therefore the writ petition was not the alternative remedy. However, this did not find favour with the learned single Judge. On merits, the learned single Judge found that it was admitted that the accident in which Roshan Lal lost his arm did take place at the sugarcane crusher. The Commissioner thereby held that Roshan Lal met with an accident with sugarcane crusher and lost his arm during the course of his employment. It was therefore difficult to hold that no foundation was laid by the Commissioner for allowing compensation to Roshan Lal.

(3.) THE next contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that there was no justification for the Commissioner to award Rs. 3780/- by way of penalty under Section 4 a of the Act. This plea was also negatived as it was found that a notice of the claim petition was given to the writ petitioner. He did not pay the compensation to Roshan Lal within 30 days and instead contested the claim petition. Thus, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to hold that there was sufficient compliance in terms of Section 10-A of the Act and the petitioner having failed to pay the compensation, the Commissioner was justified in imposing penalty in terms of Section 4-A of the Act.