ORDER
Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an employer has come up before this Court against the order dated 10-12-1993 passed under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the first respondent in W. C. No. 143 of 1993. The second respondent claimed compensation from the petitioner for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an accident that arose out of and in the course of the employment by the petitioner. IT seems that the accident took place on 30.6.1992. The second respondent was admitted as an inpatient from 30.6.1992 to 30.7.1992 and due to the accident the left hand middle finger of the 2nd respondent was totally amputated and also amputation was made on the index finger and little finger of the 2nd respondent. It seems that asking grafting was also done in the index finger and middle finger of the 2nd respondent and that after getting a long course of treatment, the permanent disability of the second respondent is 26 per cent partial permanent. A certificate to the said effect has laos been issued on 25.11.1992 from the Institute for Research and Rehabilitation of Hand and Department of Plastic Surgery, Government Stanley Hospital, Madras. While it is so, when the second respondent filed petition claiming compensation, the petitioner seems to have filed an application under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act and requested the Department, viz., Commissioner of Labour (I), Teynampet, Madras to pass orders directing the second respondent to report to the petitioner for further treatment.
2. After hearing both parties, the first respondent dismissed the application field by the petitioner under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act by order dated 10.12.1993 in W. C. No. 143 of 1993. Against the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after going through the affidavit filed in support of this above writ petition, I am of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained. Learned counsel appearing of the petitioner contends that the first respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and that no prejudice will be caused to the second respondent by reporting for treatment as his fingers can be restored to the maximum extent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the petition filed by the petitioner is intended for the purpose that no worker should claim excess compensation and as such the first respondent should have exercised his jurisdiction and allowed the petition field by the petitioner. In support of the said contention, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Amarshi Jeram v. Hazarat & Co. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the Gujarat High Court has explained the scope of Sec. 11 of the Act and that the principles laid down in the said decision have to be applied to the present case.
4. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that an application field under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act is maintainable at all. The treatment given to the second respondent was over and a certificate has also been issued on 25.11.1992 by the Institute for Research and Rehabilitation of Hand and Department of Plastic Surgery, Government Stanley Hospital, Madras to the said effect. If the petitioner felt aggrieved that the said certificate issued by the institution is erroneous or if according to the petitioner further treatment could have been given to the second respondent, it is open to the petitioner to take up such pleas during the course of hearing of the claim petition. Once the treatment is over, as rightly pointed out by the first respondent in the impugned order, nothing more service for further treatment. I am therefore of the view that the application field by the petitioner under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act is wholly misconceived. It is useful to extract sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act :
(2) If a workman, on being required to do so by the employer under Sub-sec. (1) or by the Commissioner at any time refuses to submit himself for examination by a qualified medical practitioner or in any way obstructs the same, his right to compensation shall be suspended during the continuance of such refusal or obstruction rules, in the case of refusal, he was prevented by any sufficient cause from so submitting himself;
I do not think the judgment of learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court, cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is applicable to the facts of this case, as in the said decision, learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider the scope of limitation of Sec. 11 of the Act in paragraph (2) of the decision which reads as follows :
“…… It is clear from the section that as employer can avoid liability for compensation on his providing the workmen with the service of a medical practitioner and if such services are refused or instruction of such medical practitioner are disregarded by the workmen in an unreasonable manner, the injury and the resulting disablement are to be deemed to be of the same nature and duration as they might reasonably have been expected to be if the workmen had been regularly attended by a qualified medical practitioner and whose instructions the workman had followed. But it is also clear from this section that the onus is upon the employer to prove that he had offered services of a medical practitioner, free of charge, to the workmen and that of such offer, the workmen had refused to take treatment of such medical practitioner or that such treatment was taken by the workman had disregarded the instructions of such a medical practitioner As I have already pointed out, no evidence was led on behalf of the employers”.
There can be no dispute about the scope of provision of Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 11 of the Act. It is not the case where a request has been made when the workman was undergoing treatment. I am of the view the petitioner wants to drag on the proceedings under some pretext or other though the treatment of the second respondent was over and a certificate with regard to the disability of the second respondent has already been obtained. In my view, rightly, the application filed under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act has been dismissed by the first respondent.
5. This writ petition fails and it is, therefrom dismissed. No costs.