MANAGER MAHARAJA INTERNATIONAL ELECTROLUX LTD Vs. GYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the orders dated 31-5-2000 and 7-6-2001 passed by the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, alwar. By the former order, the learned commissioner granted a compensation of rs. 1,19,539 along with 10 per cent interest per annum in favour of Kalyan Singh, the claimant and imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,908 upon the employer. The appellant had moved an application under Section 6 of Workmen's compensation Act, ('the Act' for short) and under Rule 3 (d) and (e) of the Rules of 1924 seeking a review of the orderdated 31-5-2000. However, by the latter order dated 7-6-2001, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant company deals with the manufacturing of refrigerators underthe brand name of 'kelvinator'. Earlierthe company was working underthe name and style of Maharaja international Ltd. But subsequently, it has been registered in the name and style of electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Gyan Singh (henceforth to be referred to as 'the claimant' for short) claimed that he was employed by the appellant through Anil Jelly, the contractor for the purpose of painting and whitewashing the factory building. On 4-2-97, while he was walking on the top of tin-shed, which was made of cement board and was old, suddenly he fell through the roof and sustained a fracture of his backbone. Initially, he was rushed to the hospital at Shahjahanpur, therefrom to the hospital at Behrod and eventually to the S. M. S. Hospital at Jaipur. Because of the accident, he became permanelty disabled. At the time of the accident he was earning Rs. 2,000 as wages and at the time of the accident he was 22 years old. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner.

(3.) IN their reply the appellant has merely denied the fact that the claimant was ever employed with them. According to the appellant no accident took place within the factory premises on 4-2-1997. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Commissioner framed four issues. In order to support his case, the claimant examined himself and one Rajpal as a witness. The appellant, on the other hand, examined three witnesses. After hearing both the sides and after considering oral and documentary evidence, the learned commissioner had granted the compensation and imposed the penalty as aforementioned.