The court emphasized the importance of valid service of summons and declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the absence of good grounds.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th April, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.9,08,657/- to respondent No.1.

2. Respondent No.1 filed an application for compensation against the petitioner seeking compensation on the ground that he was working with the petitioner as a machine man at a salary of Rs. 7,500/-; on 11th October, 2013, the respondent returned back to his quarter after completing his night duty; on 12th October, 2013 at about 2:00-2:30 P.M., he received telephonic instructions that the petitioner’s vehicle had gone out of order and another vehicle had been arranged but the driver does not know the route and, therefore, he should accompany the vehicle, whereupon respondent No.1 went with the vehicle which met with an accident with an unknown truck near Khampur, G.T. Karnal Road, P.S. Alipur; the police registered FIR No. 470 dated 12th October, 2013 under Sections 279/337 IPC; respondent No.1 was treated at LNJP Hospital and he has suffered 85% disability.

3. As per the record of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation the dasti summons was served on the petitioner on 15th January, 2016. The service report records that the officer, who went to serve the summons, talked to the petitioner and on his instructions, the munim Parmanand received the notice. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation proceeded ex parte against petitioner on 18th January, 2016. Respondent No.1 filed ex parte evidence before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. Respondent No.1 relied upon the disability certificate dated 22nd November, 2014 issued by Medical Board of Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra Hospital according to which respondent No.1 has suffered 85% disability in relation to his upper limbs.

4. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation held that respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner and he met with an accident on 12th October, 2013 and the said accident arose out of and during the course of his employment with the petitioner which resulted in disability in relation to his upper limbs. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.9,08,657/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent.

5. The petitioner challenged the ex parte order dated 29th April, 2016 on the ground that he was not served with the summons. According to the petitioner, the summons should have been sent by registered AD or speed post in terms of Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924. It is further submitted that the disability of the respondent No.1 is 60% according to Schedule I Part II Serial No.4 of the Employees Compensation Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner, Rohit Malhotra is not the proprietor of Kamla Industries. According to the petitioner, Kamla Industries is the proprietorship firm of his father, A.K. Malhotra who had given the said property on rent to the petitioner and the petitioner is running a proprietorship firm named, Pringle & Company in which the respondent was employed as a helper. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 worked in the night shift on 11th October, 2013 and he left the factory in the morning of 12th October, 2013, which was a Saturday and weekly off for the factory. On 12th October, 2013, the petitioner was informed by some other worker that respondent No.1 suffered an accident at Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road while travelling on tempo whereupon the petitioner directed the staff to give help to the respondent which is stated in the FIR. The petitioner also claimed that he continued to pay salary to respondent No.1 for about two months and continued his employment as a guard whereas respondent No.1 worked with the petitioner for only 10 days and thereafter, respondent No.1 started giving extortion calls and threats to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the owner of the vehicle No. DL-1LL-6070 was not examined to prove that the petitioner had requisitioned the vehicle and respondent