I^UEhByiE^ >l?»l»|y(?<2) jl jUhlk l-lbUjbltb fiSjB.iKiia&i^UE uiyi'+ <@R^- l.i^lff tbjl.b] Ufett^UE ^i5%'-"^"""t-yew""t^t^••••-•••••••^y-S-^-^^^-^"/^ ^^ ^..^....^^..^ tbfch ^Ufi lUhlh t'KM.IUbj 'a]fft(B.®'bUIMb- te£. yb^^^yi ^^fe? (L^- ^i c^^? ^^2^^/ fi^ ^v3s ^ipffv^f, s^ftoTO, fsi<ii+fy NIK^I **11<h fr\, C. .C_ 1^0- isrsr W1, 200 ^- sn^r Tiira; (ipf^^a) SD^T.'SRI f<-ii°b wn aii^i 'sjiii* ^ Kvr •pgimiffcr ai^i *i<i[i'i''ft-< WRif'? ft^ At^K ^aifinsn^i OS/U5/200/— Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lajwyer for the State. The Commissioner for Worl(|nen Compensation, Durg has under Section 27 of the Workmen Coi|ipensation Act, 1923 submitted itt-t following question of law for decisio|i by this Court:- "Whether in a case of fal|al accident, the application under Compensation Act, 1923 could be Section 10 of the Workmer disposed of on the basis of s compromise dated 15.03.2007? Or Whether in a fatal accident| case where the employer has not deposited any amount for |»ayment to the dependents of the deceased workman, the a(jplication for compensation should only be decided on merits?" Considering the scheme of 1923 and the provisions contained the Workmen Compensation Act, in Section 8 and Section 28 of the Act, the reference is answered as fcjllows: "In view of the omission of Vf\e words "or to a dependant" from Section 28 and the provision of Se|stion 8, in acaseof fatel accident, the Commissioner for Workmen Cojmpensation is bound to decide the case on merits and not on the basl partieson 15.3.2007. Reference is answered accorjjingly. s of a compromise as fiied by the .1,... •'».:SdA DUipiRaosaheb Deshmukh Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,UUO.