ROSHANDEEN versus PREETILAL

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 02-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
j 
-
ROSHANDEEN 
v. 
PREETILAL 
NOVEMBER 2, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
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 
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. 
Writ jurisdiction-Power of High Court-Held: Is basically intended to 
salvage causes of justice-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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
by con~cting the error of law. 
E 
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 
was pending before the Commissioner, an application was filed stating that 
F 
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 
B 
c 
D 
this appeal. 
-' · 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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 
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 
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] 
F 
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 
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 a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.