Ramakrishna Food Industry vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Yedla Santosh

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order dated 5-11-2012 in I.A. No. 1/2012 in W.C. No. 1/2012 on the file of respondent No. 2. As the order proposed to be passed by this Court will not affect the interests of respondent No. 3 in any manner, it is not necessary to serve notice on him.

I have heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Respondent No. 3 is the employee of the petitioner. He has approached respondent No. 2 by filing W.C. No. 1/2012 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The petitioner resisted the said claim, inter alia pleading that respondent No. 3 has suffered the injuries as he failed to follow its instructions. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2012 requesting respondent No. 2 to frame the following issues:

Whether the applicant got injured in the course of and out of his employment?

Whether the applicant followed the instructions of his instructors on the day of incident. If not, to what relief the opposite party is entitled?

Respondent No. 2, by the impugned order, has disposed of the said I.A. by observing that the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be looked into and answered in the final order.

Rule 28 of the Workmen''s Compensation Rules, 1924, ordains that the Commissioner shall ascertain what material proposition of fact (sic) and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to him to depend. The language of this Rule is thus couched in mandatory terms, leaving no option for respondent No. 2 other than framing the issues on the material proposition of fact or law over which the parties are at variance. It is therefore imperative for respondent No. 2 to frame formal issues to enable the parties to let in evidence and prove their respective cases based on such issues. So much so, the failure of respondent No. 2 to frame issues is contrary to the procedure prescribed by the above mentioned Rule.

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No. 2 to frame appropriate issues before commencing the enquiry and adjudicating the claim of respondent No. 3. As a sequel, WPMP No. 6167/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.