VIJAY RAM Vs. CHANDER PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an employer against whom an award in the amount of Rs. 14.250/ -has been made by Assistant Labour Commissioner Udhampur with powers of Commissioner under Workmens Compensate act, 19 hereinafter the Act, under section 4 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act to compensation the respondent for his temporary disablement caused due to as injured suffered by him.

(2.) THE respondents case before the Commissioner was that the appellant had taken him from Udhampur to village Talwada on 30 -11 -1977 to remove some defect in a compresser. On the following day, while he was going to the site of the appellants work alongwith his Munshi where the compressor lay, he was hit by a stone which flew high from a blast, resulting in his temporary disability to do any work for a period of five years. The appellants case on the other hand was that the respondent did not fall within the definition of a workman, as such, his claim for compensation under the Act, deserved to be rejected. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective cases and the Commissioner on consideration of the same held the respondent to be a workman employed by the appellant and awarded the compensation holding further that the injury sustained by the respondent was caused by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment.

(3.) MR . Gupta appearing for the appellant has assailed the award on a number of grounds which I proceed to deal with one by one. His first contention is that the Commissioner has not followed the procedure laid down in Rules 28 and 29 of the Rules made under the Act, which tantamount to a misdirection on a question of law, vitiating the entire award. Rules 28 and 29 enjoin upon the Commissioner to frame issues on the points on which the parties are at variance and further require him to dispose of the issues of law first. These Rules, I have already held, are in substance a reproduction of rules 1 and 2 of order 14 C. P. C. and their non -observance in the absence of miscarriage of Justice will not vitiate the Commissioners award, assuming that non -observance of statutory rules is a misdirection on a question of law. There can be no question of miscarriage of justice if the parties go to the trial fully knowing each others case, lead evidence in support of their respective cases, and also address arguments on the points in dispute, (see Vijay Ram Vs. Janak Raj) Civil first Misc. Appeal No : 11 of 1978 decided today). The same thing has happened here also. The parties have gone to the trial fully understanding each others case, have led evidence and discussed the whole case threadbare before the Commissioner during the course of arguments The commissioner too has adverted himself to all the points in controversy between the parties. No fault can thus be found with his award on the ground of non -observance of the rules. ¢