MFA 1476/2004
1
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALos3§é»
DATED THIS THE 23163 DAY OF JULY, "
BEFORE Q " !
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUSTIC.:3JI§£?.:.'S.F}§{l'{I. ': A
m.1I~.A.no.147§[_& T V4 A'
BETWEEN: V ' '
SRE D.C.RAJA REDDY,
S/O CHINNAPPA, .
NCL373/2, BEHIND SANDHYA' ' '
TOURING TALKIES, MABIVALA, " _
BANGALORE-560 055:.' " . 'V ..}'..A:§PELLANT
(BY SR1 J.KANAKAF';AJ;1::jA{}V.V)'"'« "
AND: 1 " I"
1.
sMT.c.LLA’i9I¥iA,5’v., 4 , .
W/O LATE ~.NARAYAPIASWA_!y_IY–. ‘
@ 1.AKsHM1HARAYANja, ‘-
AGED 28 YEARS. * ”
2. SMT.;’NARAYANAMMI\. ‘V
W/V_()iLA?I’E BA1.APPA,.. …..
‘ . “AGED 6’~wEAgs.
* ._.B{}fFHARES_Ii3IN€} H3′ CHAMUNDI
Ex’r$NsieN.,.__B.3mJ1 STREET,
RAMANAC:AR!;M,
BANmL.joRE~RURAL DISTRICT. ..RESI~”€)NDEN’1’S
” ” ‘1″A{3§f”sR:1% K.’i’.’GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADV. FOR R-I 85 2 (ABSENT?)
” 2 THE?» APPEAL IS FELED U/3 30:1} OF’ THE WORKMENS
..__{;OMf5.ENSATI0N ACT, 1927, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.12.-2003,
— ?AS’S’Ei3 iN DISPUTE N0.WCA[§?’C/’CR-Z0/’99, on THE FILE OF THE
MFA 1476/2004
5
‘whether the Commissioner was justified in
the appficxttien filed by the appellant seeking”
opportunity to cross-exaIm’ne the ciaimant +-
to lead his evidence?’
7. It is borne out from the ieconis
cmss-examined HIV-1 and has nt2t:vLt(‘:hVa11en”geg;t bet’-xfeiéjibne ‘t$efore” V
the Commissioner. T};1at,<.).n when vvthevviicase was
calied out. both the .We!12'°_: the matter was
adjourned to u edvocate for the
applicant. despite giving time
the the Cornmissionexj had
not availezi the PW-1. Based on
the said sebmissen; passed holding that there was
no cmSS'-examination and the matter was adjourned for
'Ve.=_V:ié.sp9fi'e§n'{*s jevigziencetttttto 01.10.2002. On 01.1o.2m2, an
eppficaemfje«V:1§1é§r,'–1~eo;der xvm Rule 17(4) was filed by the
2 appetlant Ieereuiéittiequesting to recall PW-1 and provide him an
t' its Ctnsswexaminc. The matter was adjourned to
A It is seen from the order sheet that this application
not been considered. Even on 09.12.2002 though the
nppeflant herein was present, the application was not
MFA 1476/2004
7
to appear before the Commissioner was not served on he_1:.__ The
application filed by the applicant coulci not have been
on that gonad. Unless the appellant is guilty of
protracting the matter before the vforf
meaning PW-1 and subjecting her’__for ,
not have been negatived. The ordeiveheet does stiowt that a
fair and reasonable ~- thteuafivpenant to
cmss–exam1’ne the claimant: I am of the
oonsidered View consideration by
providing fair to the appeflant to
cmss-exagniiie evidence. The question
raised for oonsidera1ig3ite«ist’a;iStKf¢Eed accordingly.
9. I1; ti:s.eIest11″t foe flzte foregoing, this appeal is allowed.
the Commissioner for Workxnen’s
aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh
consitiexathen eccondance with law. The Commissioner shall
-4 j;-fj1.§S%I§= TI10t§1’c.~:%;«:’to both the parties and provide opportunity to the
VA to croes~exaJ:ni11e PW-1 and also to kaad his evidence.
“‘-tI«’:Vh_ge__*§3omInissioner shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously
possible. It is ordered that the amount in deposit befoxe this
%
MFA 1476/ 2004
8
Court shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Worlgxnerfs
Compensation, Sub«~Divisio3:1 110.4, Bangalore, who ‘ii_i\r§st
me said amount in fixed deposit initially for
months. Depending on the result of tinge tin»;
is in deposit shall be disbuxsed to age V ”
‘ judge
KK