HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No.: 472 of 2005 Decided on: 15.7.2009 Nargu Ram and another ………Appellants. Versus Managing Director, H.P. State Forest Corporation, Shimla and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3: Mr.N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For respondent No.4: Mr.Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation (SDM, Gohar) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), dated 24.10.2005, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the appellants for the grant of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Brief facts of the case necessary for the present discussion are that an application for the grant of compensation was filed before the Commissioner by the present appellants alleging that they were dependants upon __________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - their son Ram Lal, who was working as a labourer in H.P. Forest Corporation at Nihari. It was alleged that during the course of his employment, a slipper fell upon him and he died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The age of the deceased was alleged to be 19 years. His monthly wages were also alleged as Rs.3,000/-. The appellants impleaded respondents No.1 to 3 alleging that the deceased was an employee of the said respondents. A perusal of the impugned order shows that during the trial of the case, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants to implead one Shiv Dayal as respondent No.4 (respondent No.4 in the present appeal also). It was not specifically mentioned in regard to the relations in between respondent No.4 and respondents No.1 to 3 and a notice was issued to respondent No.4, who did not put in appearance and accordingly the Commissioner proceeded with the case and held that since no application was filed for amendment of the application, the application filed by the appellants was dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no findings have been given by the Commissioner that the deceased was not an employee of respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 have led evidence to this effect but the said evidence was never discussed nor any findings were given by the learned Commissioner in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be a speaking order and the case had not been pleaded in a - 3 - proper manner by the appellants, who should have amended the petition and claimed proper relief, but for this reason, it cannot be said that the appellants are not entitled for the grant of compensation, if the case stands proved otherwise. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The said order is set aside and it is directed that the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation shall give an opportunity to the appellants to amend the petition and fresh notice shall be issued to respondent No.4 Shiv Dayal and thereafter the trial shall be concluded by the said Commissioner keeping in view the evidence led by both the parties. However, it is directed that the appellants shall file the application for amendment, if any, within one month of the date fixed and in case no application is filed, the Commissioner shall be competent to proceed with the case and give its findings on the basis of the evidence already led before it. Needless to say that, if the said Shiv Dayal is impleaded as respondent No.4, he shall be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses already examined or fresh evidence may be recorded and he shall be given an opportunity to lead the evidence. After the conclusion of the case, the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation shall decide the case keeping in view the evidence led by both the parties. The appellants shall be entitled to apply for interim compensation, if legally entitled. In view of the fact that the case is an old one, the Commissioner, Workmen - 4 - Compensation shall decide the same within six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the SDM, Gohar on 17th August, 2009. The record of the case be returned alongwith a copy of this judgment. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.