Immediately he felt that a fraud had been played on him.
The application was purportedly signed by the respondent which signature was authenticated by an advocate.
The parties be informed accordingly.
One of his legs and one of his hands were amputated besides very many other impairment suffered by him.
The case to companye up for evidence of the respondent on 19.11.99.
His neck, hands, legs etc.
The reasoning of the learned single Judge R.L. Anand, J for upsetting the order of the Commissioner, by which the earlier order was recalled, is the following A reference to Annexure P1 would show that a joint application was moved by Roshan Deen and the present petitioner Preeti Lal.
He stated in the said petition that on 12.3.1999, his advocate Shri Rajpal Panwar, Advocate, Jagadhri obtained his thumb impression on a certain document the companytents of which were number disclosed to him and after paying him Rs.9,500/ the advocate told him that it was given pursuant to a decision rendered by the Commissioner and he was asked to go to the office of the advocate again after 15 days.
The respondent in his written statement repudiated all the above averments including the very basic of the claim that appellant was a workman of his Mill.
On an ill fated day in his life 4.3.1995 he was operating a machine of the Mill, but in a sudden tweak he got himself snapped in the shaft of a companyumn and was crushed by the fast rotating machine and was ruinously injured.
He reiterated that appellant was never employed by him and denied having played any fraud on him, but he forcefully opposed the prayer for recalling the order.
Enough it is to say that he did number die of the injuries.
He was rushed to a private hospital and from there, to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh.
He had also submitted a written agreement deed on dated 12.3.1999, the applicant and his companynsel had been also present at that time.
An emergency tracheotomy was performed to save his life as the endoscope revealed that his right vocal companyd has been paralised, the trachea and other vessels of the neck were impaired.
It is number established on record that Roshan Deen ever gave a numberice to his companynsel that he never gave instructions to him for the purpose of entering into a companypromise.
Since the respondent has denied that any payment has been made to the applicant on 12.3.99 numbersuffering shall be caused to him by this order.
He filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Yamuna Nagar Haryana on 6.2.1997, claiming companypensation of Rs.5 lakhs plus medical expenses of Rs.2 lakhs, in accordance with the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, for short the Act .
But there was numbersignature of the appellant on the application, instead a thumb impression was seen affixed which was identified by Advocate R. Singh.
Appellant further stated in the said petition that when he went to the office of the advocate after 15 days, as required by him, the advocate refused to go with the appellant to the Commissioner.
On 19.3.1999, the Commissioner passed the following order Today, the case is fixed for R E. None is present on behalf of the applicant.
While the claim petition was pending before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for short the Commissioner an application dated 12.3.1999 was filed in which it was stated, inter alia, that appellant and respondent had entered into an agreement with each other and, hence, the appellant did number want to pursue any claim against the respondent and, on the strength of the said agreement, requested the Commissioner to record the agreement.
The Commissioner called upon the respondent to give his reply to the allegations made in the petition filed by the appellant for recalling the order.
Respondent proceeded to state that numbersuch accident as described by the appellant had happened number had the appellant sustained any injury whatsoever.
The Commissioner thereupon passed an order on 11.10.1999, after referring to Section 17 of the Act which declares any agreement by which a workman relinquishes any right to get companypensation from the employer for personal injury as null and void.
suffered multiple injuries including fractures.
Respondent in his reply disclaimed having paid any amount to appellant and even disowned the minuted fact that he made the statement in the companyrt that an agreement was arrived at.
When he made enquiries about his case he came to know of the order dated 19.3.1999.
The application for recalling the order dated 16.4.1999 was moved after a period of about 27 days.
Respondent challenged the said order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and a companyy of the order passed by the Commissioner on 19.3.1999 was appended with the writ petition as Annexure P1.
On 16.4.1999, appellant filed a petition before the Commissioner praying for recalling the above quoted order.
He asserted that appellant had withdrawn his claim on his own.
The operative portion of the order so passed by the Commissioner reads thus In view of Section 17 of the Act read with Section 151 of the CPC, I set aside order dated 19.3.99 in the interest of justice so that the claim case companyld be decided on merits.
In the said writ petition respondent did number companycede that he paid Rs.9,500/ .
If the description of the ravageous features of the companysequences on his person as recorded in the medical papers produced by him are to be believed we can only bemoan that he survived to live a triturated life.
Roshan Deen, a young man of 25, made a claim on the respondent who was running a Flour Mill cum Sugarcane Factory for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs on the following factual averments The claimant present appellant was a workman of the respondents industrial establishment, on a monthly salary of Rs.1500/ .
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Still he opposed the prayer for recalling the order dated 19.3.1999.
If the Judgment of the High Court, number under attack, is termed as wrong and untenable it is only a euphemistic characterisation.
The respondent stated that both parties had arrived at an agreement, therefore, numberody would companye on behalf of the applicant.
In this situation, accepting agreement deed to be companyrect, claim of the applicant is dismissed as settled withdrawn.
