AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Deb, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rigional Office, Ulubari, Gauhati against the order and judgment dated 6.1.1990/(sic)1990 passed by the Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati.
I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Mr. Dutta submits that this appeal rests on a very short point as to whether the (sic)men''s Compensation Act, 1923 as amended in 1984 vide Act of 1984 operates respectively (sic, retrospectively) or prospectively. Admittedly, the accident took (sic) on 7.8.1983. It is admitted that Section 4 and Schedule IV of Workmen''s Campensation Act (Amendment Act 1984) and the Schedule came into force (sic) effect from 1.7.1984.
The Deputy Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Kamrup held that (sic) compromise between the Insurance Company and the claimant was arrived (sic) the year 1989 the provisions of the Amendment Act will apply in the facts (sic) circumstances of the case. Mr. Dutta, has placed reliance on the case Singareni (sic)rics Co. Ltd. represented by its General Manager, Appellant v. commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Warangal and another, Respondents reported in 1988 ACJ 940. The aforesaid judgment was passed by the High Court Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Dutta has, relied upon the case Kochu Velu v. Purakkattu Joseph and Ors. reported in 1984 (2) TAC 410, the case General Manager, Western Railway Bombay v. Lala Nanda reported in 1985 TAC 270 and the case Rafiquennessa Vs. Lal Bahadur Chetri (Dead) through his Representatives and Others,
Relying upon the cases reported in 1988 ACJ 940; 1934 (2) TAC 410 and 1985 (1) TAC 276. Mr. Dutta has argued the provisions of the Amending Act shall not apply, The amending Act clearly shows that the Act as prospective operation and not retrospective operation. The principles of retrospective operation has been Laid down in the case M/s Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri (Supra) in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment.
I am in full agreement with the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dutta and the argument advanced by him.
In the result, the appeal succeeds. The order dated 6.1.90/8.1.1990 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati is set aside. There would be no order as to costs.