FAO No.315 of 1987 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 21,2010. Shri Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh (deceased), now represented by his widow Smt.Ram Rati --Appellant vs. M/S Boota Ram Ram Parkash,Saw Mill Baroda Road,Gohana, District Sonepat -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Gopi Chand,Advocate,for the appellant None for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is directed against order dated 4.12.1986, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sonepat Circle Sonepat, (for short,Commissioner), whereby in view of statement of the appellant and the respondent, that compromise has been entered into between the parties, the case was closed. A few skeletal facts in order to unfold the dispute between the parties are that on 5.6.1985, Rajinder Singh (since deceased) who was employed by the respondent in the year 1982 suffered injuries on various parts of his body on 19.8.1984 during the course of his employment. As a result of which, he suffered paralysis. He was discharged from Medical FAO No.315 of 1987 2 Hospital, Rohtak on 5.3.1985 and the hospital issued a certificate to the effect that he had lost 100% working capacity. He claimed half monthly payment @ Rs.250/- p.m. from the date of accident i.e. Rs.19.8.1984 till the date when he was discharged from the hospital i.e. on 5.3.1985. He also claimed lump sum payment of Rs.75,000/- During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, injured Rajinder Singh died on 28.9.1985 and was substituted by his legal representatives, namely Ram Ratti, his widow and four children. On 4.12.1986, the Commissioner recorded the statement of Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant and one Amar Singh, who had stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the claimant had received the entire amount of compensation from the respondent. Thus, there is no claim left of the complainant in respect of the death of Rajinder Singh from the respondent. Another statement was suffered by Buta Ram, respondent who had stated that “I have compromised the claim arising out of death of said Rajinder Singh and has paid the entire amount of claim to the claimant”. On the basis of these two statements, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the present appeal was preferred by Smt.Ram Rati, widow of deceased Rajinder Singh, which was admitted on 21.4.1987. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that the case has been shown in regular list of this Court at Serial No. 363. Mr.Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has committed a patent FAO No.315 of 1987 3 error or law in closing the case of the claimant on the basis of statement suffered by the Advocate appearing on his behalf, which is in violation of the provisions of Sections 8, 17 and 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 ( for short,the Act). It is further submitted that as per Section 28, where the amout of any lumpsum payable as compensation has been settled by agreement, whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment of otherwise, or where any compensation has been so settled as being payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the employer to the Commissioner, who shall, on being satisfied as to its genuineness, record the memorandum in a register in the prescribed manner. The Commissioner is further obliged to give a notice to the parties concerned before such memorandum is recorded in the register. He further submits that if the Commissioner finds that the amount of compensation is inadequate or there is some fraud or undue influence exercised by the employer upon the employee or legal representatives, the Commissioner can refuse to record the memorandum of the agreement in the register. It is further submitted that in the present case, no such procedure has been adopted and the poor widow and her minor children have been cheated by the employer in connivance with the Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant/claimant before the Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Advocate who was appearing should have prepared memorandum of agreement reached at between the parties and then sent the same to the Commissioner for the purpose of his intimation and for entry in the register which is to be maintained in the prescribed form as per Section 28 of the Act. An unholy haste in which the case has been closed by the Commissioner on the statement suffered by the FAO No.315 of 1987 4 counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant indicates a connivance between the Advocate and the employer because the amount which is alleged to have been paid to the claimant is also not mentioned even in the statement which has been suffered by both of them. It is vaguely submitted that the amount has been paid and nothing is left for the purpose of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 17 of the Act, “any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void inso far as purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act”. Besides the provisions of the Act, it is also now well settled that a compromise has to be in writing and signed by all the parties. Whereas in the present case, no compromise in writing and signed has been placed on record except for the statement which has been suffered by the Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant/claimant and one Amar Singh, who is not even party to the lis. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside. Law protects a woman and person who are legally disabled and for that purpose only, Section 28 has been enacted by the legislature. In the present case, though after the death of Rajinder Singh his widow and minor children have been substituted but still the widow has not been brought forward to suffer a statement with regard to receipt of compensation as lumpsum payment from the respondent. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set FAO No.315 of 1987 5 aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner,Sonepat Circle, Sonepat, who is further directed to decide this matter afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The appellants are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 24.5.2010. April 21,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge