Gurtu, J. - (1.) The appellants before us are the minor sons of Ram Lal Singh, They filed a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation appointed under the said Act. Their statement of claim was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1948.
(2.) The claimants alleged that their father was employed as S.P.W. I. in the service of the Oudh Tirhnt Railway at Sahjanwa railway station and that he died on 18-3-1947 from an accident resulting from collision of a light engine with a trolly which he was plying to measure the creep from Gorakhpur. Then the claim set out the details of the accident and stated that the claimants were the minor sons of the deceased and wholly dependent on him and that the family had heavily suffered for which legitimate compensation was due to the dependents and the members of the family. They stated that a claim for compensation made to the Railway had been rejected and they claimed a sum of Rs 3,500/- by way of compensation. The cause title of this miscellaneous application No. 2 of 1948 showed the Oudh Tirhut Railway through its General Manager residing in Railway Quarters Gorakhpur as the opposite party. A written statement was filed by the opposite party the Oudh Tirhut Railway through the General Manager. We are not concerned with the other pleas in this written statement except plea No. 14 which runs as follows : "That the defendant does not represent the railway owned by the State for the purposes of the civil suit." We would like to add that the written statement admitted that the appellant's father B. Ram Lal Singh was employed as a S.P.W. I in the service of the Oudh Tirhut Railway."
(3.) Upon the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation framed several issues. Issue No. 4 was in the following terms : "Can a suit under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act be brought against the General Manager Oudh Tirhut Railway without impleading the Governor General?" The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by his order dated 29-3-1949 found that the applicants were entitled to a compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,500/- but he dismissed the claim nonetheless upon the ground that the suit was not brought against the Governor General, who was the employer, as it should have been under the Workmen's Compensation Act but was brought against the General Manager of the named railway who was not the employer. He was of the view that the General Manager, Oudh and Tirhut Railway could not be considered either as the employer or as the managing agent of the employer the Central Government and since the Oudh and Tirhut Railway was owned by the Central Government for that reason in his view the application for compensation should have been filed against the Governor General. He took the view that since the Governor General was not a party the application could not succeed. He was of the view that the application could be brought against the General Manager only if it were proved that the General Manager was the "managing agent" of the Oudh and Tirhut Railway and that the onus of proving this lay on the applicants and he pointed out that between the Governor General and the General Manager there are other persons managing the railway namely the Railway Member of the Government and the Railway Board members and there could be only one "Managing Agent." He was of the view that the managing agent must have all the powers of the Central Government delegated to him and that there was nothing on the record to show that the General Manager, Oudh and Tirhut Railway had all such powers which the members of the Railway Board have. Finally he came to the conclusion that as the General Manager could not be considered to be the managing agent of the Central Government so no relief could be granted as the opposite party impleaded in the application was not the employer of Ramlal Singh deceased.;