2001 (11) TMI 1008 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's judgment.
2. Validity of the agreement purportedly signed by the appellant.
3. Application of Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
4. Allegations of fraud and misconduct by the advocate.

Summary:

Legitimacy of the High Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's judgment as "wrong and untenable," stating it "crippled the cause of justice of a crippled man." The High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction was deemed to have overturned justice granted by a lower authority to a severely disabled person.

Validity of the Agreement:
The appellant, Roshan Deen, claimed he was coerced into signing an agreement under fraudulent circumstances, which led to the dismissal of his compensation claim. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation initially dismissed the claim based on this agreement but later recalled the order upon realizing the potential fraud. The High Court, however, reinstated the original dismissal, which the Supreme Court found unjust.

Application of Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
The Supreme Court emphasized Section 17 of the Act, which declares any agreement relinquishing a workman's right to compensation as "null and void." The Commissioner had set aside the dismissal order under this section, but the High Court ignored this legislative mandate, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Allegations of Fraud and Misconduct by the Advocate:
The appellant alleged that his advocate obtained his thumb impression on a document without disclosing its contents and paid him Rs. 9,500 deceitfully. The Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of Haryana to investigate these allegations against the advocate, Rajpal Panwar, for potential misconduct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Commissioner's order dated 11.10.1999, and directed the Commissioner to expedite the proceedings. Additionally, the Bar Council of Haryana was instructed to investigate the allegations against the appellant's advocate.