JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The Appellant company has challenged the judgment and order dated October 24, 1989 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, Labour Court Aurangabad in Application WC No. 31 of 1988 filed by the deceased Applicant who claimed compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the employment injury which he sustained on October 4, 1986 when he was working on the roof of the Company and he fell down and sustained a fracture injury which was certified by the doctor to be 30% permanent disability. Soon after the said accident, it appears from the record that, the Applicant issued a notice to the Appellant Company claiming compensation for the employment injury. There was no reply to the said notice. The Applicant, therefore, filed the present Application for compensation. The Appellant Company as well as the respondent No. 2, both were served with the Court’s notices. The Appellant Company did not file its written statement while the respondent No. 2. filed his written statement but remained absent on the date of the evidence. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner was constrained to decide the matter ex parte in their absence.
2. The applicant examined himself to prove the extent of the employment injury. His evidence was accepted by the Commissioner. The medical certificate issued by the doctor, certifying the permanent disability to be 30% was accepted by the Commissioner. On the basis of the wages received by the Applicant the Commissioner computed the total amount of compensation to be Rs. 30,578/- and Rs. 15,2891/- towards fifty per cent penalty on the compensation amount payable to the Applicant. The learned Commissioner also awarded 6% p.a. interest on the compensation amount from October 4, 1986.
3. The Appellant Company has challenged the aforesaid ex parte order solely on the ground that it had entrusted the matter to one advocate. Shri Pradeep Dabhade but he did not file the written statement nor did he attend the matter on several dates. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant Company that for the mistake of the advocate the party should not suffer. It is, therefore, prayed that the ex parte order should be set aside.
4. It is pertinent to note that the Application filed by the deceased Applicant was under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 to claim compensation for the employment injury sustained by him. I also cannot lose sight of a very crucial fact that in spite of notice the Appellant company did not care to appear and file its written statement. It was the foremost duty of the Appellant Company to have attended the matter in the Court but it got satisfied completely by engaging an advocate, without following the matter further and without inquiring from him what was happening in the matter. It appears from the record that no one from the Appellant Company was attending the matter in this Court. The learned Commissioner had I adjourned the matter from time to time for not less than four or five occasions. The workmen’s compensation matters cannot be equated with other property suits. In the case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the human beings and human injuries are involved. The persons claiming compensation are either the injured persons or the legal heirs and representative of the deceased employees who died during the course of the employment. The reality is that they have already suffered during the course of the employment in the accident and they cannot be made to suffer more in the Court proceedings. The Commissioner has given the Appellant company more than sufficient opportunity to enable it to file its written statement and to contest the matter. It cannot remain satisfied that it had engaged an advocate. Had the Appellant Company taken sufficient care to depute its own man to the Court it would have come to know that the matter needed urgent attention and that its advocate was not remaining present in the Court. It also would have come to know that no written statement was filed on behalf of the company though they had done whatever was required to be done at their end. In these circumstances, the stock plea which is always advanced that “the party should not suffer because of the mistake of the advocate” cannot be accepted in such matters. Human beings, who have already suffered, cannot be made to suffer more in the Court. The matters like workmen’s compensation needs urgent disposal and to give quick reliefs to those who suffered and who knock the doors of the Commissioner for some relief. It is also pertinent to note that in spite of ex parte order the Appellant company did not bother to approach the Commissioner for setting aside the ex parte order or for getting indemnified from the so-called contractor. The Appellant company has also not cared to take any action against the negligent Advocate who failed to attend the matter. In these circumstances, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Appellant company and cannot accept the stock plea that “it should not be made to suffer because its advocate had committed mistake”. This is not a mistake but a gross negligence on the part of the advocate for which the Appellant Company must suffer. Besides, for the mistake of the Appellant Company the Applicant, who was injured, cannot be made to suffer more.
5. I have gone through the judgment of the Commissioner on merits. He has decided the case on the evidence available before him and I do not find any error of law in the impugned judgment. He has rightly come to a conclusion that the Applicant was entitled to compensation, penalty and interest.
6. It would be open for the Appellant Company to institute suitable proceedings, in accordance with law, against the so-called contractor for getting itself indemnified as provided under Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.