AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S. 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
  • Workmen's Compensation Act;(2)
  • Workmen's Compensation Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S. 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
  • Workmen's Compensation Act;(2)
  • Workmen's Compensation Act

    Surendra Kumar Sharma v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

    By the Court:— Learned Standing Counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks.

    Issue notice to newly impleaded respondent No. 3 returnable at an early date.

    2. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act should only be a person of a legal background like a lawyer or a retired Judge. Although S. 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, states that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, but we are of the opinion that after the Constitution has come into force in 1950, S. 20 of the Act must be read in light of Art. 50 of the Constitution which directs that there shall be separation between the executive and the judiciary. Since the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is to decide judicial disputes, we are of the opinion that the State Government can only appoint a person who has a legal background. This is so for two reasons:

    (1) such person will be trained in the law ana will be knowing the relevant rules and the development of the case-law pertaining to the Workmen's Compensation Act;

    (2) such a person will inspire confidence of the public because he will be independent whereas a person of an executive background is likely to have pro-executive bias which will colour his thinking.

    3. In fact the purpose of enacting Art. 50 in the Constitution was to have an independent judiciary which inspire confidence in the public and hence in our prima facie opinion a person who decides legal disputes must be an independent member of the executive, otherwise Art. 50 of the Constitution will be violated. It may be pointed out that under S. 23 of the Act the Commissioner has all the powers of a civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects and he is deemed to be a civil Court for the purpose of S. 195 Criminal Procedure Code S. 24 of the Act states that parties can be represented by a legal practitioner or by an official of an Insurance Company or a registered trade union or by an Inspector. Section 25 prescribes the manner of recording evidence. Under S. 30 an appeal is prescribed to the High Court on question of law.

    4. These provisions clearly indicate that the Commissioner is a Tribunal exercising judicial powers. Hence in view of Art. 50 of the Constitution he must be a person of a legal background like a lawyer or a retired Judge so that public confidence may be maintained and proper judicial verdicts be delivered which can only be done by a trained judicial mind.

    5. In the circumstances we issue notice to respondent No. 3 and all other persons who are functioning as Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and are not from legal background to show cause why their appointments may not be cancelled. We further direct that in future the posts of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act shall be filled only be person from a legal background as mentioned above.

    6. Learned Standing Counsel will send the notices to all the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh who are not of legal background. The notices may be sent through the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, who will serve it on the person concerned. List on 6 May, 2002.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Surendra Kumar Sharma v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
    (Apr 8, 2002)