Civil Revision No. 1967 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1967 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2010 Mohmad Rafi ....Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2009, passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed by passing the following order: - “Case is fixed for evidence of the applicant for the last many dates and last opp. was given on 25.9.08 for the evidence. Today is also no applicant evidence is present. I am of the view that the applicant has delaying these proceedings unnecessarily and should have deposed the evidence on the opportunities provided which he could not do so. Now the evidence of the applicant is closed today and the case is fixed for respondent No.1's evidence on 13.8.09. List of witnesses by both the respondents be submitted on the next date.” The petitioner thereafter moved an application for recalling the order by stating therein, that the evidence could not be closed because the counsel for the petitioner had noted wrong date, therefore, he could not be present for his evidence on the date fixed. Civil Revision No. 1967 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The application was dismissed by the learned Commissioner. The order rejecting the application for recalling the order cannot be sustained, as it is non-speaking order, and does not give reasons to reject the application. The petitioner being a workman, was claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him, from the Insurance Company, as the vehicle was insured. The Workmen's Compensation Act is enacted, for the welfare of workmen and grant them compensation. It being beneficial piece of legislation is to be interpreted in favour of the workmen. The learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, could not have closed the evidence of the petitioner so as to deny him the benefit due to him under the Act on technical grounds of non-presence, specially when good ground for non- production of evidence was given i.e. the counsel had noted the wrong date. For the reasons stated, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility. However, for the inconvenience caused, the petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Disposed off. (Vinod K. Sharma) August 13, 2010 Judge R.S.