1977 PLP 388 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 30‑Appellant‑respondent refusing ‑ acceptance of notice from Commissioner ‑ Commissioner proceeding ex parse‑ Award of Commissioner, in circumstances, upheld, in appeal preferred simply on plea that ex parte order had been passed without service of notice. L. M. Shardha for Appellants. Respondent in person. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding compensation to the respondent.

2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. While he was working with an expeller of the machine he was met with an accident and his hand up to wrist was completely crushed. He was removed to the hospital where he remained as indoor patient for 1 months or 1 months. Subsequently, he produced a medical certificate showing permanent disability to the extent of 60%. He, therefore, filed a claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The amount of Rs. 9,600 was allowed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

3. The only plea taken before me is that the learned Commissioner pissed ex parte order without service of notice on the appellant. I find no force in this contention. The perusal of the record of the learned Court shows that every time the notice was sent to the appellant, he refused to accept it and, therefore, the registered letter was returned with the endorsement to that effect. It was, however, pleaded that the last notice was sent on 18th December, 1975 for 20th December, 1975, but it was said to have been offered to the appellant on 24th December, 1975, i.e. long after the date of hearing. Even this contention has no force as there is an endorsement in red ink dated 19th December, 1975 to the fact that the letter was refused. Consequently, the appellant was presumed to have been served on 19th December, 1975. He was a resident of Pano Akil while the Court was at Sukkur. Consequently, it cannot be said that the appellant could not attend the Court on 20th December. Apart from this, the case did not proceed on 20th December and it was adjourned to 31st December, 1975 for ex parte proof. So the appellant had an ample opportunity to appear before the learned Commissioner to contest the claim. The evidence was taken on 31st December, 1975 and the impugned order was passed on 7th January, 1976.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts there is no force in the contention that the learned Commissioner was not justified in proceeding with the matte ex parte and passing the impugned order.

5. In result the appeal is dismissed.