CHHAYA RANI Vs. DHAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court arises out of a judgment dated 17-3-1990 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.A. No. 97 of 1986 (R), dismissing the said appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to he referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) While admitting the appeal the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 30 of the Act was raised and has been kept open for decision by this court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant in support a maintainability of the appeal has referred a Bench decision of this Court in Gulabadei Ahir v. Union of India, 1988 PLJR 1122. Before deciding the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal it would be proper to state the relevant facts of this case. The deceased (S.C. Roy) was an employee of M/s. National Construction Company, a Contractor of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the TELCO' for short). Sri Roy died in course of his duty and by reason of that the TELCO in the capacity of Principal employer deposited the amount of compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. However, both the appellant and the respondent claimed herself to be the widow of the deceased and moved before the Commissioner for payment of the compensation amount. The Commissioner, in terms of the order dated 29-8-1986 passed in W.C.A. Case No. 1 of 1980 rejected the contentions of both the appellant and the respondent and directed the appellant to obtain succession certificate within a period of six months, failing which the amount of compensation deposited will be returned to the employer. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant moved this court by filing Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1986 (R) and the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the said appeal with certain observations. Hence, this L.P. Appeal.