CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1994) 04 BOM CK 0026

Maharashtra Pradesh Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Kamgar Sangh (Intuc) vs Management of Kamptee Colliery and Others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 19 April 1994 · Citation: (1994) ACJ 1040 : (1996) 1 BomCR 98 : (1995) 70 FLR 168 : (1999) 3 LLJ 142 : (1994) 2 MhLj 1370 : (1994) MhLj 1370

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.A. Desai, J
CASE NUMBER
F.A. No''s. 27, 28 and 29 of 1983

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 346 words

A.A. Desai, J.—In respect of compensation payable for the injuries, the parties, pursuant to section 28 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, submitted the agreement dated 12-4-1982 for registration. By order dated 21-9-1982, the Commissioner refused to register.

2.

In these appeals, the submission of Shri Pendharkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that having regard to the scheme of section 28(1)(d) of the Act read with Rule 51 of Workmen''s Compensation Rules, the Commissioner is under obligation to make further enquiry whether the compensation agreed upon is just and adequate. Refusal to register the agreement does not relieve the Commissioner from the statutory duty to probe into the aspect. Directing the workmen to approach the Commissioner u/s 22 of the Act would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. As such, non-exercise of power has contravened the provisions of beneficial legislation.

3.

At the time of verification of agreement dated 12-4-1982, workmen were absent. On enquiry from the employer and Union, it was reported to the Commissioner that workmen had resiled from the agreement. The Commissioner, therefore, refused to register the agreement. Refusal was not for the reasons envisaged by sub-clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act. The workmen did not continue to be party to the agreement. Document ceases to be an agreement. As such, the same could not be entertained. Refusal to register so recorded in the impugned order was not in terms of the provisions. The same cannot be construed to mean the refusal under the provisions.

4.

The Commissioner, in such cases, is not charged with any responsibility to probe into the aspect of just or otherwise of the compensation. The workman having resiled the agreement, have no right to invoke the jurisdiction of Commissioner to adjudicate any of the aspects under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act. The workmen were at liberty to approach the Commissioner u/s 22 of the Act.

5.

The appeals are without any merit and hence, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.

6.

Appeal dismissed.