BARU RAM Vs. LABOUR OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SADHU Ram Respondent filed a claim petition (P. 1) for compensation on behalf of his minor son Roshan Lal (13) Respondent alleging that the latter was employed with Baru Ram Petitioner at his sugar -cane crusher in village Chulkana, Tehsil and District Sonepat. On 11.3.1974, 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 sugar -cane crusher. In pursuance of this claim petition the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act issued notice (P.2) to the Petitioner for April 23, 1974. The Petitioner submitted his written statement (P.3) and contested the claim raised on behalf of Roshan Lal Respondent. The Petitioner stated in his written statement that Roshan Lal was not employed at his sugar -cane crusher and that he was merely a volunteer who was watching the crusher for pleasure and enjoyment sake when he met with an accident. He further stated that the sugar -cane crusher was not being run by him and that there was no contract of employment between him and Roshan Lal. The parties were allowed to adduce evidence. The Commissioner vide order dated May 1, 1975, (P.4) accepted the claim petition and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 11,800/ - , including Rs. 3,780/ - by way of penalty under Section 4 -A, Workmen's Compensation Act, (hereafter the Act) and Rs. 460/ - by way of interest to Roshan Lal Respondent. The Petitioner has assailed the order P. 4 in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Act is available to the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that this writ petition could not be dismissed on this ground because in the event of the Petitioner filing an appeal it is incumbent upon him to deposit the amount of compensation awarded to Roshan Lal Respondent. Reliance has been placed on Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1954 SC 403. It was held in Himmatlal Harilal Mehta's case (supra) that the principle that a Court will not issue a prerogative writ when an adequate alternative remedy was available could not apply where a party has come to the Court with an allegation that his fundamental right had been infringed and sought relief under Article 226. Moreover, the remedy provided by the Act is of an onerous and burdensome character and before the Appellant can avail of it he has to deposit the whole amount of the tax, such a provision can hardly be described as an adequate alternative remedy. The ratio of this authority is applicable to the case under consideration and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner can avail of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

(3.) IT is implicit in the order of the Commissioner that the Petitioner had employed Roshan Lal Respondent at his sugar -cane crusher. It is admitted that the accident in which Roshan Lal Respondent lost his arm did take place with the sugar -cane crusher. The Commissioner thereby held that Roshan Lal met with an accident with a sugar -cane crusher and lost his arm during the course of his employment. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that no foundation was laid by the Commissioner for awarding compensation to Roshan Lal.