HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No.1874 of 1991 FRIDAY, THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between: Pragathi Straw Boards (Pvt.) Ltd., ….APPELLANT(S) and Lingaiah …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No.1874 of 1991 JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of an order passed in W.C. Case No.186 of 1989 dated 08.11.1991 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Rangareddy District Zone, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the claim preferred by the injured-applicant for payment of compensation towards the injuries sustained by him out of and during the course of employment was allowed-in-part. The employer/opposite party is the appellant herein. In an application filed by the applicant/workman seeking compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of the fracture sustained by him out of and during the course of employment, where the disability was shown as 30% and the age of the applicant/workman was considered as 31 years, the learned Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that as per the disability certificate there was a mal-union of the fracture of left femur with restricted movements of left elbow and that the permanent disability is 75% to the left hand and that the workman was not in a position to perform the usual duties which he was, in fact, performing earlier in the place of employment and, consequently, the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.36,041-25ps with interest at 6% per annum from 01.04.1989 till the date of payment. The appellant/employer challenged the order on the ground that the office of the learned Commissioner was shifted to some other place on the relevant date, the said fact was not informed to the appellant and on the date of hearing when there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, the learned Commissioner passed the order on merits basing on the material available on record and as such the order passed without the participation of the appellant is sought to be set aside in this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant/employer. None appears for the respondent/workman. Absolutely no material was placed on record to show that the appellant/employer was not informed about shifting of office of the learned Commissioner at relevant point of time which fact is to be proved by the appellant. In the absence of any such proof, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant/employer cannot be accepted. The matter pertains to the year 1991. I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served if the matter is remitted back to the file of the learned Commissioner since the compensation granted by the learned Commissioner basing on the record is appropriate. Thus, absolutely, I see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 30th OCTOBER 2009 CVRK