Holding

Any agreement that purports to waive a workman's right to compensation under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is void, and the High Court erred in overturning the Commissioner’s order recalling the dismissal.

Summary

Roshan Deen, a workman injured while operating machinery at Preeti Lal's flour mill, claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. While the claim was pending, the Commissioner dismissed it on the basis of an alleged agreement between the parties that Deen would withdraw his claim, an agreement later alleged by Deen to have been procured through fraud by his advocate. The Commissioner recalled his dismissal order under Section 17, which declares any contract relinquishing a workman's right to compensation void. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the recall and upheld the dismissal, holding that no fraud was proved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, emphasizing that Section 17 makes such agreements void and that writ jurisdiction must be used to prevent injustice, thereby restoring the Commissioner’s order and directing the claim be decided on its merits. The Court also directed the Haryana Bar Council to investigate the alleged misconduct of the advocate who obtained Deen's thumb impression.

Issues considered

Whether an agreement by which a workman relinquishes his right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is void under Section 17.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Commissioner’s order recalling the dismissal of the claim.
Whether fraud was established sufficient to warrant recall of the Commissioner’s order.
Whether writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should be exercised to prevent injustice in this context.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923s. 17, s. 28, s. 29, s. 4

Subjects

Workmen's CompensationSection 17contracting outfraudwrit jurisdictionArticle 226Article 227High CourtSupreme Courtindustrial accidentcompensation claim

Judgment

ROSHANDEEN A
v.
PREETILAL
-· NOVEMBER 2, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

Labour Laws :

Workmens Compensation Act, 1923-Section 17-Contracting out-
Personal injury-Arising out of or in the course of employment-Compensation
for-Held: Any agreement or contract whereby a workman relinquishes his
c
right of compensation is null and void if it removes or reduces the liability of
compensation payable under the provisions of the Act.

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 227.
D
Writ jurisdiction-Power of High Court-Held: Is basically intended to
salvage causes ofjustice-ft is the duty of High Court to see whether injustice
has resulted on account o.f any erroneous interpretation o.f la~v-{f justice has
resulted on an erroneous view of law, High Court should not erase such justice
by con~cting the error of law. E
j
The appellant was a workman of the respondent's indnstrial estab-
lishment. While operating a machine he was crushed by the fast rotating
machine and suffered multiple injuries including fractures.

- The appellant filed a petition before the Commissioner for Work-
men's Compensation claiming compensation in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. While the claim petition
F

was pending before the Commissioner, an application was filed stating that
the appellant and respondent had entered into an agreement with each
other and that the appellant did not want to pursue the claim. Accordingly, G
the Commissioner dismissed the appellant's claim.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition before the Commissioner
praying for recalling the Commissioner's order of dismissal of the appel-
lant's claim on the ground that a fraud was played on the appellant. The H
23
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Commissioner thereupon recalled the order in accordance with the provi·
sions of Section 17 of the Act. The respondent filed a writ petition before
the High Court challenlllng the aforesaid order, which was allowed. Hence
this appeal. -' ·

Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD : 1. The powers of writ jurisdiction of the High Court are
basically intended to salvage causes of justice. The power conferred ou the
High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutio'.' is to advance
justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such Constitutional
powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be
c subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court
is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic
angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous
interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous
view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name
D of correcting the error of law. [29-A-B-C]

State of U.P. v. District Jiulge, AIR (1984) SC 1401, relied on.

2.1. If the claim of the appellant is to be granted he would have been
benefited by an enormous amount of compensation when compared with
E the paltry pelf which his advocate has paid to him through fraud or
deceitful means. [30-C]

2.2. Iu the light of Sections 17 and 28 of the Workmen's Compensa·
tion Act, 1923 the High Court could have, without any strain, gauged the
magnitude of the injustice inflicted on the claimant if the order of the
F Commissioner remained unchanged. Had the Commissioner refused to
recall his original order, the High Court would not have refused to inter·
fere, if the claimant moved the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution. [30-D-E]
-
G 3.1. The High Court permitted the revival of an absolutely unjust
order, both on facts and on law, which deprived a person of his legitimate
right to have his claim decided in accordance with the provisions of the
Statute. [29-D]

3.2. The High Court seems to have entertained a notion that once the
H Commissioner happened to pass an order, however, illegal, unjust or
ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL [THOMAS, J.] 25
inequitable it be, or even if the Commissioner was convinced that the order A
was wangled from him by playing a fraud on him, the High Court would
be helpless and the parties thereto would also be helpless except to soc·
comb to such fraud. [3l·D]

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581,
relied on. .B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7421 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.2001 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 109 of 2000.
c
Ms. K. Sarada Devi for the Appellant.

P. Narasimhan for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

If the Judgment of the High Court, now under attack, is termed as wrong
and untenable it is only a euphemistic characterisation. It really amounted to
crippling the cause of justice of a crippled man. The powers of writ jurisdiction
of the High Courts are basically intended to salvage causes of justice, but the E
High Court, in this case, has exercised such powers for over-turning justice
which a lower authority had granted to a devastatingly disabled person.

Roshan Deen, a young man of 25, made a claim on the respondent (who
was running a Flour Mill-cum-Sugarcane Factory) for a sum ofRs.7 lakhs on
the following factual averments: The claimant (present appellant) was a work- F
man of the respondent's industrial establishment, on a monthly salary of
Rs.1500. On an ill-fated day in his. life (4.3.1995) he was operating a machine
of the Mjll, but in a sudden tweak he got himself snapped in the shaft of a
column and was crushed by the fast rotating machine and was ruinously
injured. His neck, hands, legs etc. suffered multiple injuries including fractures. G
He was rushed to, a private hospital and from there, to the Post Graduate
Institute, Chandigarh. An emergency tracheotomy was performed to save his
life as the endoscope revealed that his right vocal cord has been paralised, the
trachea and other vessels of the neck were impaired. One of his legs and one
of his hands were amputated besides' very many other impairment suffered by
H
•
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A him. Enough it is to say that he did not die of the injuries. If the description
of the ravageous features of the consequences on his person as recorded in the
medical papers prpduced by him are to be believed we can only bemoan that
he survived to live a triturated life.

He filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensa-
-
B tion, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) on 6.2.1997, claiming compensation of Rs.5
lakhs plus medical expenses of Rs.2 lakhs, in accordance with the provisions
of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short 'the Act').

The respondent in his written statement repudiated all the above aver-
ments including the very basic of the claim that appellant was a workman of
c his Mill. Respondent proceeded to state that no such accident as described by
the appellant had happened nor had the appellant sustained any injuiy what-
soever.

While the claim petition was pending before the Commissioner for
-
b Workmen's Compensation (for short 'the Commissioner') an application dated
12.3.1999 was filed in which it was stated, inter alia, that appellant and
respondent had entered into an agreement with each other and, hence, the
appellant did not want to pursue any claim against the respondent and, on the
strength of the said agreement, requested the Commissioner to record the
agreement. The application was purportedly signed by the respondent which
E signature was authenticated by an advocate. But there was no signature of the
\.
appellant on the application, instead a thumb impression was seen affixed
which was identified by Advocate R. Singh. On 19.3.1999, th~ Commissioner
passed .the following order:

"Today, the case is fixed for R/E. None is present on behalf of the
F
applicant. The respondent stated that both parties had arrived at an
agreement, therefore, nobody would come on behalf of the applicant.
-
He had also submitted a written agreement deed on dated 12.3.1999,
the applicant and his counsel had been also present at that time. In this
situation, accepting agreement deed to be correct, claim of the appli-
G cant is dismissed as settled/withdrawn."

On 16.4.1999, appellant filed a petition before the Commissioner pray-
ing for recalling the above quoted order. He stated in the said petition that on
12.3.1999, his advocate (Shri Rajpal Panwar, Advocate, Jagadhri) obtained his
thumb impression on a certain document the contents of which were not
H
ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL [TNOMAS, J.] 27
disclosed to him and after paying him Rs.9,500 the advocate told him that it A
was given pursuant .to a decision rendered by the Commissioner; and he was
asked to go to the office of the advocate again after 15 days. Appellant further
stated m the said petition that when he went to the office of the advocate after
15 days, as required by him, the advocate refused to go with the appellant to
the Commissioner. When he made enquiries about his case he came to know
B
of the order dated 19.3.1999. Immediately he felt that a fraud had been played
on him.

The Commissioner called upon the respondent to give his reply to the
allegations made in the petition filed by the appellant for recalling the order.
Respondent in his reply disclaimed having paid any amount to appellant and c
even disowned the minuted fact that he made the statement in the court that
an agreement was arrived at. He asserted that appellant had withdrawn his
claim on his own. He reiterated that appellant was never employed by him and
denied having played any fraud on him, but he forcefully opposed the prayer
for recalling the order.
D
The Commissioner thereupon passed an order on 11.10.1999, after re-
ferring to Section 17 of the Act which declares any agreement (by which a
workman relinquishes any right to get compensation from che employer for
personal injury) as null and void. The operative portion of the order so passed
by the Commissioner reads thus: E

"In view of Section 17 of the Act read with Section 151 of the CPC,
I set aside order dated 19.3.99 in the interest of justice so.that the claim
case could be decided on merits. Since the respondent has denied that
any payment has been made to the applicant on 12.3.99 no suffering
shall be caused to him by this order. The case to come up for evidence F
of the respondent on 19.ll.99. No costs. The parties be informed
accordingly."

Respondent challenged the said order before the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution and a copy of the order passed by the Commission~r
on 19.3.1999 was appended with the writ petition as Annexure-Pl. In the said G
writ petition respondent did not concede that he paid Rs.9,500. Still he opposed
the prayer for recalling the order dated 19.3.1999. Learned single Judge of the
High Court, despite his attention being drawn to Section 17 of the Act, went
to the extent of observing that no fraud was played on the appellant. The
reasoning of the learned single Judge (R.L. Anand, J) for upsetting the order H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A of the Corrunissioner, by which the .earlier order was recalled, is the following:

"A reference to Annexure-Pl would show that a joint application was
moved by Roshan Deen and the present petitioner Preeti Lal. It was
. in the shape of a compromise in which it was submitted by the parties
that since they have compromised with each other, therefore, Roshan .
B Deen applicant does notwant to pursue his case and.withdraw the
same. Of course, it was written in the said application Annexure-Pl
that the said compromise be also taken on record. In view of the clear
intention on the part of Roshan Deen that he did noi want to pursue
his case and withdraw the same, no other order. was required. The
c application for recalling the order dated 16.4.1999 was moved after a
period of about 27 days. It is not established on record that Roshan
Deen ever gave a notice to his counsel that he never gave instructions
to him for the purpose of entering into a compromise. Even in the
review application Roshan Deen does not say that the thumb impres-
sion on the original of Annexure-Pl is not his. In these circumstances,
D I am of the opinion that no fraud has been practised upon the Court.
Rather, the intention of Roshan Deen became bad subsequently and he
wanted to .withdraw from his compromise which is not permissible."

The only consolation provided by the learned single Judge to the crip-
pled human being was that "Roshan Deen may adopt other legal remedy under
E
law against the order dated 19.3.99" and did not mulct him with costs. What
is the other remedy which the appellant could adopt is not even indicated by
the learned single Judge, and we are unaware of any other possible legal
remedy which could even be contemplated by the appellant. The legislative
protection conferred on an injured workman as per Section 17 of the Act, !"
F the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh
and Ors., [2000] 3 SCC 581 which were brought to the notice of the learned
single Judge, did not make any impact on him. He sidelined the legislative
mandate and bypassed the binding decision and proceeded to overturn the
correct decision rendered by the Corrunissioner. Thus, the hands of the High
G Court had snatched away the solace provided by the Corrunissioner to a semi-
handless and semi-legless person.
..
We are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity reflected in the impugned
judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in a case where judicial mind
would be tempted to utilize all possible legal measures to impart justice to a
H man mutilated so outrageously by his cruel destiny. The High Court non-suited
ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL [THOMAS, J.] 29
him in exercise of a supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under A
Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has reminded that
the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. (vide State of Uttar
Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1401). The very
purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is
B
that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look
out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law
through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account
of any erroneous interpretation of Jaw. If justice became the byproduct of an
erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in
the name of correcting the error of law. c
Here, look at the fall out of the impugned order. The High Court permit-
ted the revival of an absolutely unjust order, both on facts and on law, which
deprived a person of his legitimate right to have his claim decided in accord-
ance with the provisions of the statute. A reading of Section 17 of the Act D
would amplify the above position. It reads thus:

"Contracting out. - Any contract or agreement whether made before
or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relin-
quishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal
injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null E
and void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any
person to pay compensation under this Act."

In this context it is necessary to point out that Section 28 of the Act
contains a provision for registration of agreements. Even the said provision
F
shows that an agreement should be for disbursement of the amoun~ "payable
as compensation" and if any such agreement is arrived at, the section requires
that a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the employer to the Commissioner
who shall record the memorandum in a register in the.prescribed manner. One
of the clauses in the proviso indicates that if it appears to the Commissioner
that an agreement ought not to be registered "by reason of the inadequacy of G
the sum or amount, or by reason of the agreement having been obtained by
fraud or undue influence or other improper means", the Commissioner has the
power to refuse to record the memorandum of the agreement. Section 29
contains a mandate that if the memorandum of any agreement is not sent to the
Commissioner, as required by the preceding section, "the employer shall be H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A liable to pay the full amount of compensation which he is liable to pay under
the provisions of this Act".

B
Section 4 of the Act gives specifications how to quantify the amount of
compensation payable to the workmen. Clause (b) of sub-section (I) thereof
says: "where permanent total disablement results ·from the .injury, an amount
equal to sixty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured :-vorkman multiplied
-
by the relevant factor" shall be the amount of compensation. What is meant •
by "relevant factor" in relation to a workman is defined in Explanation I to the
said section. It means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule
IV. If the age of the claimant is as stated by him in the application, the relevant
C factor would be a figure nearing 217. We mentioned the above aspect only for
indicating that if the claim of the appellant is to be granted he would have been
benefited by an enormous amou.nt of compensation when compared with the
paltry pelf which his advocate has paid· to him through fraud or deceitful ,.
means.
D In the light of the above provisions of the Act the High Court could have,
without any strain, gauged the magnitude of the injustice inflicted on the
claimant if the order of the Commissioner dated 19.3.1999 remained un-
changed. Had the Commissioner refused to recall the said order, would the
High Court have refused. to interfere, if the claimant moved the High Court
E under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the said order? It does not
require much reasoning that the answer to that question could only be in the
negative. If so, learned single Judge of the High Court had facilitated miscar-
riage of justice to be occasioned by restoring an order passed by the Commis-
sioner on 19.3.1999, which is exfacie illegal apart from being unjust and
F inequitable. Even on the fact situation the High Court could not have revived
the said order because it had recorded that it was the respondent who repre-
sented before the Commissioner that both parties had arrived at an agreement.
We may point out that the very respondent himself in his reply to the appli-
cation for restoration of the claim petition had disowned having made any such
statement before the Commissioner.
G
It was thus expiicitly clear that the agreement reported before the Com-
missioner which led to the order dated 19.3.1999 had burgeoned in fraud. It
got crystallised >nd a chicanery was played on the Commissioner who was
misled to belie\l_e that appellant and respondent had entered into an agreement.
H It is surprising how learned single Judge missed the factual position that there
ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL [THOMAS, J.] 31
was no dispute between the parties, when the application for recall of the order A
dated 19.3.1999 was considered, that an artifice was disponed in the court at
least by somebody in the name of the respondent. This is clear when respondent
--
- himself disowned having stated before the Commissioner that an agreement
was reached.

We may again extract the relevant ponion of the order dated 19.3.1999. B
"The respondent stated that both parties have arrived at an agreement, there-
fore, nobody would come on behalf of the applicant." When the appellant
submitted before the Commissioner on 16.4.1999 when he requested for recall-
ing the said order that no such agreement had been arrived at, the Commis-
sioner without difficul_ty noticed that respondent also submitted to the Commis- c
sioner that he .did not make any such statement before the Commissioner on
19.3.1999. The whole deliberations before the Commissioner on 19.3.1999
smack of a fraud cf a superlative degree played on the Commissioner.

Learned single J~dge seems to have entertained a notion that once a
Commissioner happened to pass an order, however illegal, unjust or inequitable D
it be, or even if the Commissioner was convinced that the order was wangled
from him by playing a fraud on him he would be helpless and the parties thereto
would also be helpless except to succumb to such fraud. It was in this context
that the decision cited before the learned single Judge of the High Court
required consideration by him. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeiulra E
Singh aflll Ors., (supra) this Court had held thus:

"Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling
the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud
of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No coun or
tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is F
convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresen-
tation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim."

We cannot allow the order of the Commissioner dated 19.3.1999 to
remain alive even for a moment. It is the byproduct of fraud and cheating. We,
therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and restore the order passed by the G
Commissioner on I I.I 0.1999. As already a long period of six years has been
wasted we direct the Commissioner to expedite the proceedings and dispose
of .the claim without any further delay.

Before disposing of this appeal we deem it necessary to make one more H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A direction which, in our opinion, is required for completion of the even course
of justice. The Bar Council of the State of Haryana should hold an inquiry into
the allegations made by the petitioner against the advocate Rajpal Panwar of
Jagadhri as to whether he had played a chicanery to defraud the petitioner by
obtaining his thumb impression and paying Rs.9,500. We restrain ourselves
--
from making any observation on the merits of the allegations made against the
B
aforesaid advocate. We direct the Registry of this Court to forward a copy of
this judgment to the Secretary of the Bar Council of the Haryana. This is to
enable the said Bar Council to adopt such steps as they deem fit and necessary
for disposal of the disciplinary proceedings as against the said Rajpal Panwar,
Advocate, Jagadhri.
c v.s.s. Appeal allowed.