Full Judgment Text
Non-Repotable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 9178 of 2015
arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18507 of 2015
Kuldeep Singh ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
Panna Lal & Anr. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this court is an emplyee who
had made a claim under Workmen's Compensation Act
against the respondent-employer, as he had suffered
injury in the course of his employment.
3. It was a case of the respondent-employer that the
JUDGMENT
employer had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by
way of compensation. But the said settlemnt had not
been registered, as required under the provisions of
Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In
view of the above fact when the the employee had
approached the Commissioner, the Commissioner had not
considered the settlement which had not been
registered.
1
Page 1
4. After considering the evidence and after looking
at the facts of the case, the Commissioner ultimately
directed that a sum of Rs.1,31,971/- should be
awarded by way of compensation to the appellant-
employee, as mentioned in the order passed by the
Commissioner.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by
the Commissioner, the respondent-employer approached
the High Court and the High Court, by virtue of the
impugned judgement set aside the order of the
Commissioner in view of the fact that the parties had
already settled and the respondent-employer had
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of
settlement between the parties.
6. In the process of deliverying the judgement, the
High Court lost sight of the provisions of Section 29
of the Act, whereby the settlement which had been
JUDGMENT
arrived at between the parties ought to have been
registered. As the settlement had not been
registered, in our opinion the said settlement could
not have been looked into by the High Court or by any
other authority.
7. For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the order
of the High Court and restore the order of the
Commissioner whereby the respondent-employer was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,31,971 plus interest
2
Page 2
and other amount.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as
allowed. No order as to costs.
.................J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
..................J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
New Delhi;
th
30 October, 2015.
JUDGMENT
3
Page 3