The court affirmed the necessity for proper service of notice in legal proceedings and emphasized a liberal approach to delay in applications, prioritizing substantial justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner For Employees Compensation, Labour Court Raigarh (C.G.) (for short ‘Commissioner’) in Case No.16/E.C. Act/2016 (Miscellaneous), whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) filed by the petitioner for setting aside an ex parte award dated 23.11.2012 in Case No.27/W.C. Act/2006 was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Thaneshwar Das Bairagi in an accident that occurred on 20.04.2005. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was employed as a driver with the petitioner. He further submits that deceased along with family members of the petitioner went to Kharsiya in the Car bearing Registration No. DL-2C-2151. He met with an accident and died. As per the further pleadings, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was being paid for Rs.4,000/- per month, as a driver. Thus, seeking compensation of Rs.4,36,940/- the said application was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice of the said application was received by the petitioner and written statement was also filed. Thereafter, the application of the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2006. This led to file an appeal under the Act of 1923 before this Court, which was registered as MAC No.95/2007. This Court vide its order dated 22.07.2011 allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication of the same. Thereafter, as the petitioner was not represented before this Court in the said MAC, the learned Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner. He further submits that in the said accident along with deceased/Thaneshwar Das Bairagi, the son of the petitioner also passed away and under duress, they shifted their resident from Raigarh to Jharsugda. As the notices were sent on the Raigarh address of the petitioner, the same could not be served and thereafter the notice was served upon the petitioner through paper publication at Raigarh. He submits that as the petitioner was residing at Jharsugda, he was not aware with regard to the publication of the notice of the case at Raigarh and was proceeded ex parte before the learned Commissioner. Thereafter, an ex parte award dated 23.11.2012 was passed by the learned Commissioner and Rs.4,07,700/- was awarded as compensation. As the amount of award could not be deposited, the execution proceedings were carried out by the respondent No.1 and he came to know that the execution was filed against him for recovery of the same. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC before the Commissioner, inter alia pleaded that the petitioner has shifted to Jharsugda and proper service of the notice was not made upon him. Thus, he was not aware with regard to the pendency of the case before the learned Commissioner and the ex parte impugned award dated 23.11.2012 may be set aside. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has dismissed the application and treating it to be barred by limitation and also on merit. He submits that in the first round, the claim case of respondent No.1 was dismissed and the petitioner shifted to Jharsudga. In all fairness, the learned Commissi