Skip to content


Rajinder Singh Vs. Labhu Ram Munshi Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial;Civil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 4 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1955P& H156
ActsLimitation Act, 1908 - Sections 12 and 12(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 1; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 30
AppellantRajinder Singh
RespondentLabhu Ram Munshi Ram and anr.
Appellant Advocate Shankar Nath, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.C. Sud, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredMt. Saban v. Shahabal
Excerpt:
.....judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under..........the original respondent raja rajinder singh against an award, made by the commissioner under the workmen's compensation act, dated 20-10-1953 awarding undor that act compensation of rs. 1,800/- in favour of the original petitioners.2. santokh lal, it is alleged by the original petitioners who are labhu ram father of santokh lal and amar nath a minor brother of santokh lal, was employed as a driver by the raja on a wage of rs. 120/- per mensem. on 20-10-1951 while santokh lal was bringing back a jeep belonging to the raja from jutogh to baghal house, simla, there was an accident as a result of which the jeep was thrown down a 'khad' and both the driver and agent of the raja were killed. notice required under section 10, workmen's compensation act was given on 24-4-1952, i. e., about six.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This appeal is brought by the original respondent Raja Rajinder Singh against an award, made by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dated 20-10-1953 awarding undor that Act compensation of Rs. 1,800/- in favour of the original petitioners.

2. Santokh Lal, it is alleged by the original petitioners who are Labhu Ram father of Santokh Lal and Amar Nath a minor brother of Santokh Lal, was employed as a driver by the Raja on a wage of Rs. 120/- per mensem. On 20-10-1951 while Santokh Lal was bringing back a jeep belonging to the Raja from Jutogh to Baghal House, Simla, there was an accident as a result of which the jeep was thrown down a 'khad' and both the driver and Agent of the Raja were killed. Notice required under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act was given on 24-4-1952, i. e., about six months after the occurrence, but nothing turned on it because under the law if the employer comes to know of the occurrence . want of due notice is not fatal to the claim of the dependants of a deceased workmen.

3. Several objections were raised by the Raja that the proceedings could not be taken against him because the previous sanction of the Government was not taken under Section 87B, Civil P. C,, that Santokh Lal was a casual employee and not a workman within the meaning of that word, that the petitioners are not dependants and that notice was necessary. All these points were decided against the Raja and the question of mandatory character of Section 87B, Civil P. C., was decided against the Raja separately by an order dated 2-6-1953.

4. Objection is taken by Mr. Mehar Chand Sud to the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time. The period of limitation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is sixty days and the present appeal was filed seventy-one days after the judgment. Mr. Shankar Nath submits that the record shows that the notice of announcement of judgment was received by the Raja's Advocate Mr. A. C. Mehta on 24-10-1953 and therefore he is entitled to four days on that ground and that he is also, entitled to three days because he had under the rules of this Court required to file the order of the Commissioner dated 2-6-1953 dealing with Sections 86 and 87B, Civil P. C.

5. Now, under Section 30 an appeal lies to the HighCourt from an order awarding compensation or disallowing a claim and that is the order which is complained against in the appeal. It is not necessaryin my opinion to file a copy of each and every interlocutory order which is passed by the Commissioner,and even under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 1, CivilP. C. it has been held that all that is necessaryto file under that rule is a copy of the final judg-ment: see -- 'Mt. Saban v. Shahabal', AIR 1929Lah 481 (FB) (A), which in my opinion would applyto this case also, & therefore only of the final orderappealed against was necessary to be filed in thepresent case for which time can be deducted under Section 12. The final order dated 20-10-1953 was announced to counsel on the 24th and in spite of theseFour days that may be allowed to the appellantthe appeal would still be barred by time. I wouldhold it to be so barred and would therefore dismissthis appeal but there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //