MOHAMMED HUSSAIN MIR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no. 3 filed application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short" Act of 1923") against the writ petitioner before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Kashtwar, on the ground that on 9th June, 2007 he was engaged by the writ petitioner along with other workers for extracting stones at village Thethmola Uri and one boulder hit his right hand which resulted in causing severe injuries and ultimately all the fingers of his right hand were amputated. It was also stated that the respondent no. 3 was being paid Rs, 4, 500/- as wages per month and was 20 years of age at the time the accident took place. On filing of the application under the Act of 1923 for grant of compensation, notice was issued to the writ petitioner through registered post. The registered envelop was returned with the report that the writ petitioner has refused to accept the same. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner and respondent no. 3 was directed to lead evidence in support of his claim. After the evidence was produced before the Commissioner, the Commissioner passed an award in favour of the respondent no. 3 and against the writ petitioner, wherein respondent no. 3 was held entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,88,755/- plus Rs. 18,875/- as interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner was directed to pay award amount of Rs. 2, 07,630/- in accordance with mandate contained in Section 4 of the Act of 1923 and to deposit the award amount with the Commissioner within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award. It was also provided that on failure of complying with the said direction, additional penalty as also interest shall be imposed. It is this award, which is called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) On notice issued, respondents have filed objections/reply affidavit.

(3.) Mr. Syed Manzoor, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that the impugned award is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the private respondent no. 3 was not a workman in terms of Section 2(n) of the Act of 1923 and in this behalf invited the attention of the Court to impugned award, wherein it is mentioned that respondent no. 3 was engaged as worker. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon case titled Central Mine Planning and Design Institute ltd. v. Ramu Pasi & Anr, 2006 AIR(SC) 678. Learned counsel also referred to Section 21 of the Act of 1923, which is taken note of;