IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO. No.56/2004. Date of Decision:1st October, 2008. Sangeeta and others. …Appellants. Versus: Hem Raj. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No. For the appellants: Mr.Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-1&2: Ms.Uma Manta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The matter was heard for some time and it was pointed out that the Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Additionally enough opportunity was not given to produce the entire record pertaining to the investigation of F.I.R.No. 79/96. A prayer was made to summon the same for determining the controversy in issue. The learned counsel for the parties jointly agree that the award dated 2nd August, 2008 passed by the Commissioner Workmen [S.D.O. Civil), Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.] under Workman Compensation Act 1923 in Case No. 3 of 1997 be set aside and the matter remanded back for consideration afresh, after affording due opportunity to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 parties to place on record the documents and lead additional evidence, if necessary. As prayed for, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for adjudication afresh on all the issues. The parties through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 3rd November, 2008. The Commissioner shall afford opportunity to the parties to place on record all the documents and also lead evidence as may be required for adjudication of the matter. The matter being old, an endeavour shall be made to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31st March, 2009. The record of the Commissioner along with a copy of this order be sent back immediately. CMP.Nos. 923/2004 & 1118/2004. Infructuous (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 1, 2008(R)