ALLIED INDUSTRIES Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the order dated 5. 6. 2006 passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs. 78,087/- along with an interest @ 10% per annum w. e. f. 3. 6. 1999 in favour of Mool Chand Kumawat, the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Mool Chand was working at the factory owned by the appellant. On 3. 6. 1999, wen he was working on the Lathe machine, his left hand was caught in the machine. Consequently, he lost two fingers and sustained a fracture in this thumb and the smallest finger. At the time of his accident, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. Despite the notice sent by Mool Chand to the appellant on 21. 8. 1999, the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (`the Act of 1923' for short) was not paid to him. Thus, he filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner for a compensation of Rs. 1,56,175/ -.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Banvinder Singh has argued that both Mool Chand and his witness had categorically stated that he was an employee of the appellant. Although, it is true and the industry was registered with the Corporation, but the fact remains that no deductions were made from the salary of the employees and the appellant, as required under the Act of 1948, made no contribution. Therefore, merely because the industry was registered with the Corporation would not oust the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner. Moreover, at the time of the incident, Mool Chand did not know that the industry was registered with the Corporation. Therefore, he was justified in filing the claim petition under the Act of 1923 before the learned Commissioner.