Page 1

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  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 2

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  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 3

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; 30th October, 2015.

3