TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (5) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the 1st October 1955 and the claim was preferred against Jagdish Chander, Suraj Bhan and Kishori Lal. The learned Commissioner by his order dated 30th July 1956 absolved Jagdish Chander from liability but allowed compensation to the extent of ₹ 3,940 against Suraj Bhan and Kishori Lal. Costs of the case incurred after 31st January 1956 were also allowed. (2) Feeling aggrieved by the order absolving Jagdish Chander the workman Bawa Singh came up in appeal to this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 4th April 1958. The question which arose before the learned Single Judge was that by virtue of a term of the lease deed by which the premises in question along with the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it seems altogether unbusiness like to accept that Jagdish Chander would agree to accept only ₹ 125 per mensem as lease money and at the same time pay the same amount and something more in the form of grain and fuel-wood to Bawa Singh. The would have brought him no profit whatsoever and it is not possible to accept on the facts disclosed that any such term as is alleged by Bawa Singh could have been incorporated in the lease deed or could have been agreed to by Jagdish Chander. The result is certainly unfortunate as I understand that Suraj Bhan and Kishori Lal are financially not in a good condition and the order which has been made in favour of Bawa Singh may not really result in any benefit to him. but on the evidence as it stands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short time of the commencement of the lease he went away after handing over the mill to Suraj Bhan and that he has practically no knowledge about the details. Suraj Bhan has admitted the execution of a stamped lease deed, the original of which was with Jagdish Chander and a copy with the witness. He has merely stated that Bawa Singh used to work the mill before the lease in question and thereafter he was retained by the lessees. He too has not cared to produce a copy of the lease deed which admittedly had been given to him nor has he produced any account books. Bawa Singh workman has also appeared as P.W. 10 and he has expressly stated that at the time of the execution of the lease deed which was scribed by Munshi Khushi Ram he was present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the evidence of the scribe; nor was his attention drawn to the fact that no cross-examination was directed to the statement made by Bawa Singh in his examination-in-chief about Jagdish Chander's insistence that Bawa Singh must be retained in service and that such a term was also included in the lease deed. (5) The learned Single Judge seems to have concentrated his attention only to the question that the lease money having been fixed at ₹ 125 per mensem, it was most unlikely that Jagdish Chander could reasonably speaking take upon himself the responsibility of paying to the workman a salary of ₹ 125 per mensem, and a certain quantity of flour and fuel-wood in addition. This argument ignores the fact that if retention in se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys of the Letters Patent Bench reversing the finding on question of fact by the learned Single Judge, if the same is considered to be erroneous. It is not open to us to read into Clause 10 of the Letters Patent any limitation on the right of appeal, which is not included in it by the Legislature. (7) In the present case it is obvious that the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to the aspect which I have mentioned above nor was the evidence of the scribe considered when determining the question whether or not Bawa Singh was, at the relevant time, an employee of Jagdish Chander. (8) Mr. Nehra then contended that in any case the right of appeal from an order of the Commissioner as given by section 30 of the Workmen's Com....