EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R C P Vs. RUKMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two writ petitions contain identical facts, they are disposed of by this single judgment.

(2.) ON 29 4 1976 at about 2. 30 p. m. , two workmen M/s Mangilal and Tejaram of village Ratkara Teh. Bilara Distt. Jodhpur who were working on the bank of Rajasthan Canal, fell down in the canal and lost their precious lives. The unfortunate legal representatives gave notice and then since the State authorities did not pay compensation, an application was filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The application was contested by the petitioners. The Commissioner granted compensation to the legal representatives of both of them to the extent of Rs 13,500/. Costs were also awarded and the advocate's fee was assumed at Rs 630/-, presumably as per the civil court rule.

(3.) BUT when counsel's fee is allowed ad valoren at a particular scale both in civil courts and High Court which sometimes runs into thousands and usually in hundreds, is it not a sad state of affairs that a workman or his legal representatives are not allowed reimbursement of the fact which they pay except Rs. 104 or maximum Rs. 50/ -. Though this again is the domain of the Legislature of the rule-making authority which is the Government, I do feel that since the State has filed this writ application, it must take a note of this anomalous position also and if so advised, do the needful to put the lawyer vs. fees or costs in workmen compensation cases at per with the civil courts and other courts. If the main intention was to provide protection to workmen from charging of higher fees by counsel of the employers, the rule making authority is fully authorised to keep that in view and ensure that also.