CM(M) 106/2009. Case: Yashwinder Khurana Vs Deputy Commissioner and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CM(M) 106/2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pankaj Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: M.N. Singh, Adv. |
| Judges | Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. |
| Issue | Workmen Compensation Act - Sections 10 and 23; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 195 and 340 |
| Judgement Date | March 25, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
-
By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 Deputy Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act on an application moved by respondent No. 2 (workman) dated 25th may, 2008 be quashed and the Deputy Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act be directed to initiate action of perjury and fraud against respondent No. 2 (workman).
-
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent No. 2 herein was working with the petitioner's factory where some mishap took place on 22nd January 2008 and respondent No. 2 lost two fingers of one of his hands. He (workman) lodged a compensation claim with the office of Commissioner on 11th March, 2008 under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act and the same was registered there. However, the workman on 9th April, 2008 is stated to have entered into a settlement with the petitioner for compensation in respect of injuries and received Rs. 70,000/- in presence of Investigating Officer of Police Station Sarai Rohilla and in presence of his own sister in law and another friend Shri Chander Bhan. After receiving this compensation, the workman wrote to General Secretary of Majdoor Vikas Samiti Shri Vinod Kumar and to Shri S.K. Shukla of Majdoor Vikas Samiti not to proceed with his compensation case. On 30th April, 2008, the compensation case was taken up by the Commissioner where the parties appeared and before the Commissioner and it was stated by the workman that he had already taken Rs. 70,000/- from the management for injuries sustained by him in the course of employment and after this settlement he would have no right under Workmen Compensation Act to receive compensation for injuries. He had settled his case willingly and the compensation case be closed. After recording this case was closed. However, later on the workman made an application for revival of his case, copy of which was sent to the petitioner. In the application, the allegations of fraud were made by the workman against the petitioner herein. The Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act issued notice of the application to the petitioner and the petitioner filed reply to the application and also made an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C read with Section 195...
To continue reading
Request your trial