Ummed Singh vs Pannalal on 23 September, 2011

                                                                  1




                 R.P.No.281/11

Ummed Singh & another                                 Pannalal




23.9.2011
      Shri K.S.Rajput, Counsel for applicants.
      This review petition is directed against an order dated
23.8.2010 in Misc.Appeal No.2555/10 by which an appeal
preferred by the applicants under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has
been dismissed because of non-compliance of proviso-III of
Section 30 of the Act. This review petition is barred by limitation,
so applicant has filed an application I.A.No.6986/11 seeking
condonation of delay in filing this review petition. On notice,
respondent though served but has not appeared though a counsel

has been engaged by him.

After hearing the learned counsel for applicants, we allow
I.A.NO.6986/11 and condone the delay in filing this review
petition. I.A.NO.6986/11 is disposed of.

Heard on admission.

The contentions of the applicants are two fold, first, that an
application was moved by the applicants for compliance of third
proviso of Section 30 of the Act and without considering the
application, appeal of applicants was dismissed and second, that
the respondent was not an employee of the applicants and in fact
he was the employee of Inder Singh and Raghunath who had
taken contract to reap and thresh the crop.

From the perusal of the award dated 12.4.2010, it is
apparent that the respondent suffered injury and his right hand
near elbow was chopped at the time of threshing the crop. The
Labour Court allowed a compensation of Rs.2,66,855/- alongwith
interest to him. So far as plea of the applicants that respondent
was an employee of Raghunath and Inder Singh is concerned, it
was considered by the Labour Court while deciding the matter and
found that their statements were not of credence. The Labour
2

R.P.No.281/11

Ummed Singh & another Pannalal

23.9.2011
Court on the contrary recorded a finding that respondent was
engaged by the applicants.

Though aforesaid persons appeared before the Labour
Court and deposed in favour of the applicants, but the Labour
Court found that earlier they submitted affidavit on behalf of
respondent, but subsequently they had not appeared and were
examined by the applicants. Apart from this, appeal was
dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of third proviso to
section 30 of the Act. Even if such application was filed by the
applicants to grant time to deposit the statutory amount, even then
it was duty of the applicants to press the application at the time of
hearing. From the perusal of the order dated 23.8.2010, it is
apparent that such application was not pressed at the time of
hearing. In the review jurisdiction, we cannot examine the fact
which was not raised and pressed before the learned Single
Judge. In view of aforesaid, this review petition is found without
merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

     (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                                (Smt.Vimla Jain)
           Judge                                               Judge

C.