ROSHANDEEN versus PREETILAL

ROSHANDEEN versus PREETILAL

An agreement by a workman to relinquish his statutory right to compensation for personal injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act is void under Section 17; an order obtained by fraud before the Commissioner can and should be recalled; and the High Court erred in restoring an order based on such a fraudulent compromise, misapplying its writ jurisdiction, and thereby defeating statutory protections for injured workmen.

Parties
Appellant: Roshan Deen; Respondent: Preeti Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court's Decision in C.r. No. 109 of 2000
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; order of the Commissioner recalling the dismissal restored.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Fraud, Writ Jurisdiction, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Compromise Agreements, Contracting Out, Judicial Review
Labour Law Constitutional Law Workmen's Compensation Fraud Writ Jurisdiction Supervisory Jurisdiction Compromise Agreements Contracting Out +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roshan Deen

Appellant

Preeti Lal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court's Decision in C.r. No. 109 of 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement by a workman to relinquish his right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is valid
  2. 2 Whether writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 can be used to uphold an order obtained by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct in restoring an order based on a fraudulent compromise

Ratio Decidendi

An agreement by a workman to relinquish his statutory right to compensation for personal injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act is void under Section 17; an order obtained by fraud before the Commissioner can and should be recalled; and the High Court erred in restoring an order based on such a fraudulent compromise, misapplying its writ jurisdiction, and thereby defeating statutory protections for injured workmen.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; order of the Commissioner recalling the dismissal restored.

Orders

  • Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 16.2.2001 set aside.
  • Order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Yamuna Nagar dated 11.10.1999 restored.