RAJINDER SINGH Vs. LABHU RAM MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the original respondent Raja Rajinder Singh against an award, made by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dated 20-10-1953 awarding undor that Act compensation of Rs. 1,800/- in favour of the original petitioners.

(2.) Santokh Lal, it is alleged by the original petitioners who are Labhu Ram father of Santokh Lal and Amar Nath a minor brother of Santokh Lal, was employed as a driver by the Raja on a wage of Rs. 120/- per mensem. On 20-10-1951 while Santokh Lal was bringing back a jeep belonging to the Raja from Jutogh to Baghal House, Simla, there was an accident as a result of which the jeep was thrown down a 'khad' and both the driver and Agent of the Raja were killed. Notice required under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act was given on 24-4-1952, i. e., about six months after the occurrence, but nothing turned on it because under the law if the employer comes to know of the occurrence . want of due notice is not fatal to the claim of the dependants of a deceased workmen.

(3.) Several objections were raised by the Raja that the proceedings could not be taken against him because the previous sanction of the Government was not taken under Section 87 B, Civil P. C,, that Santokh Lal was a casual employee and not a workman within the meaning of that word, that the petitioners are not dependants and that notice was necessary. All these points were decided against the Raja and the question of mandatory character of Section 87B, Civil P. C., was decided against the Raja separately by an order dated 2-6-1953.