AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Guman Mal Lodha, J.—The respondent is widow of Radhey Shyam, the employee of the Railway who died in accident on 26-10-1979 while on duty and employment of the Railway. Compensation of Rs. 24,000/- has been allowed to her although the claim was for Rs. 30,000/-.
The order was passed on 12-11-1981 and the Railway then moved for an application for setting aside the order on the ground that no service was effected on the Railway. This application was dismissed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner on 27-8-1983.
Mr. Bapna is justified in his submission that law for citizens and all litigants to dispute is alike and the Railway was entitled for an opportunity to contest the case.
According to the finding of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner on 27-8-1983 he was of the opinion that during the arguments the counsel for the Railway did not assert that signatures on the receipt of the notice by Registered post are not of any of Railway Employee. The exact finding is as under:
cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ ds odhy us ;g iz''u ugh mBk;k fd okilh jlhnks ij tks gLrk{kj gS os mlds fdlh deZpkjh ds ugh gS A
In my opinion this clinches the issue, if genuineness of the signature of the Railway Employee representing the appellant was not challenged during the arguments, there is no substantial question of law which, requires to be decided by this court in appeal u/s 29 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
Thus there was sufficient service and the compensation allowed cannot be challenged now.
More over the present one is a case of social welfare legislation where the employee died. In my opinion in such case when the accident happened in 1979, it would be traversity of justice and mockery of social justice if the poor widow is dragged on for 3rd innings now even for meagre compensation.
Consequently the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.