Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
Javaraiah
Versus
Umesha & Another
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.200 of 2007
Decided on : 02-07-2010
For the Petitioners:R.V. Jayaprakash and Manjunath Udupa, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Gopal, Advocate.
Headnote:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 9: [A.N.Venugopala Gowda,J] Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit for declaration that plaintiff is not liable to pay compensation awarded by Commissioner under Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1930 and that defendant is not a workman under plaintiff - Plaintiff has lost the writ petition and writ Appeal -Though advised to file an appeal under Section 30 of W.C. Act, filed a suit - Held, Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1930 is a complete code in itself, and Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred - Dismissal of suit upheld.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - Section 22 & 30 :[A.N.Venugopala Gowda,J] Appellant preferred an application before Commissioner for compensation for employment injury sustained by him while working in Sugarcane crusher run by first respondent -Commissioner awarded Rs. 92, 085/- with interest - Respondent-1 contended that appellant is not a workman and Commissioner has no jurisdiction - Respondent-1 instead of preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, Challenged the award in a writ petition-Writ petition dismissed with observation to prefer an appeal under Section 30 of the WC Act - Writ appeal dismissed - Respondent-1 filed a suit under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration that he is not liable to pay compensation, that appellant was not a workman, that Commissioner under W.C. Act violated principles of natural Justice-Suit dismissed holding Civil Court has no Jurisdiction-Lower appellate Court held, suit is maintainable-High Court set aside the order of lower Appellate Court and restored the Judgment and decree of Trial Court - Held, The jurisdiction of the Courts to try all suits of civil nature is expansive as is evidence from the plain language of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ’Code’). This is because of the principle "where there is aright, there is a remedy". A litigant, thus having a grievance of civil nature has aright to institute a civil suit in a Civil Court, unless it’s cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. The general principle is that, a statutory provision excluding the jurisdiction of civil Courts should be construed strictly. In respect of any matter which the Commissioner is empowered by or under the Act to determine the issue, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of such matter is barred. The Act is a beneficial legislation, as it provides for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers. The amount of compensation is to be determined in terms of the provisions and the schedule to the Act. The Commissioner under the Act is a quasi-judicial authority and is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation. The aim of the Act is to provide for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. The statute deserve liberal consideration. The legislative act contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereof. The scheme of the Act indicates that it has provided for a forum for determination of the claims which includes payment of compensation with regard to liability or otherwise of the employer and the insurer, if any. There is a machinery provided in the Act. Against the Award passed by the Commissioner, there is a forum for appeal and that too at the highest hierarchy of judiciary in the State. The adjudicatory system provided In the Act is cheap and rapid. The procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the matter of determining the claims is simple unlike the pleadings, trial, admissibility of evidence and proof of evidence according to law before a Civil Court. Since the procedure required to be followed by the Commissioner has been laid down in the Act and the Rules, he can discharge the functions with greater expedition and inexpensiveness. The Act is intended to give speedy and inexpensive justice to the workman or the families of deceased workman. In the circumstances, the Court should adopt the purposive approach to reflect the contemporary needs and the legislative declaration of the policy envisaged in the Act. Section 30 of the Act provides for an appeal against the award passed by the Commissioner Section 19(2) excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Court so far as matters, which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Commissioner. This is not a case where the controversy cannot be resolved in appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Act. In view of the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, referred to above, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate the matter is clearly barred. The award passed by the Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be termed to be a nullity.
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J: The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, call in question legality of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bhadravathi allowing the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff and remanding the suit to the Trial Court for disposal.
2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:
The appellant-Javaraiah, preferred an application under Section 22 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act’ for short) against the 1st respondent- B. Umesh, claiming compensation for the employment injuries sustained by him while working at the sugarcane crusher unit run by the 1st respondent. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (‘Commissioner’ for short) passed an award entitling Javaraiah to receive compensation amount of Rs.92,085/- with interest at 6% p.a and also Rs.1,500/-as penalty. The 1st respondent- B. Umesh was ordered to pay the amount within 30 days of the award dated 27.07.1996. The 1st respondent filed a Misc. petition before the Commissioner to set-aside the said award. The said petition was dismissed. The 1st respondent filed W.P.1876/1998 questioning the award/order. The writ petition was dismissed on 12.03.1998 inter-alia holding that, the remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Liberty was reserved to file an appeal. The writ appeal filed thereafter, failed.
3. 1st respondent instituted a suit in the Trial Court by stating that neither the Commissioner nor this Court noticed the important ingredients as to whether the defendant is a workman or not and whether the country sugarcane crusher comes under Section 2(1)(n) of Act and that, the Commissioner has acted against the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that, Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as the status of a person can be declared under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The relief prayed was, to declare that the plaintiff is not the employer, the defendant is not a workman, working in the crusher and the award is nullity and not binding on the plaintiff. A further prayer to grant permanent injunction from executing the said award was also sought. Tahsildar-Shimoga, the executing authority was subsequently impleaded as the 2 defendant. The 1st defendant filed written statement, wherein reference was made to the proceedings that had taken place before the Commissioner and in the writ petition / writ appeal. It was contended that, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the bar under Section 19(2) of the Act; that the suit is hit by principles of resjudicata; that the suit has no cause of action and is also not maintainable.
4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is not a workman of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff is not the employer of the defendant?
ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree passed by Labour Officer and Workman’s Compensation Commissioner under KAPK: KC.38/1995 dated 27.07.1996 is nullity and not binding on the plaintiff?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
iv) Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter as contended in para 11 of the written statement?
v) Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient?
vi) What order or decree?
Issue-IV was treated as a preliminary issue. Considering the case of the parties and the written arguments filed, the Trial Court held that, the suit is not maintainable and it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was dismissed accordingly.
5. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in the Court below. The following points were raised for determination:
i) Whether appellant/plaintiff establishes that the Trial Court has erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit by dismissing his suit?
ii) Whether judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for interference by this Court?
ii
