Point of Law: Object for enacting Employees' Compensation Act even as early as 1923 was to ameliorate hardship of economically poor employees.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’) the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, District North-West, Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.

2. The appellants had initially filed a claim application under Section 22 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, District North-West, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi on 11.11.2016. In the claim application, it was claimed that Sh. Harbans Lal (the deceased) was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing No. HR-55V-2562 at a salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month plus Rs. 200/- per day as food allowance. The said vehicle was stated to be owned by respondent No. 2/respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 2 therein).

It was averred that on 24.04.2016, when Sh. Harbans Lal was driving the vehicle from Delhi to Bangalore and had reached within the jurisdiction of Police Station Managuli, Bijapur, Karnataka, he had acute pain as there was lot of stress and strain in the long and tiresome driving. It was claimed that since Sh. Harbans Lal was feeling uneasy and having difficulty in breathing, he parked the truck at a nearby dhaba. While lying down on a cot, he passed away. It was further claimed that the deceased was under stress and strain of heavy work load and passed away during the course of employment. The post-mortem of the body was conducted at District Hospital, Bijapur.

3. It is averred in the instant appeal that in the proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant filed an application seeking to withdraw the claim application. It was stated in the application that “due to technical reason the applicant intends to withdraw the instant claim petition with the liberty to file a fresh one.” The claim application was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned Commissioner on 17.02.2017.

4. Later, the appellants filed a second claim application under Section 22 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, District North-West, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 22.02.2017, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that principles of res-judicata apply in the present case and the only course of action left with the appellants was to file an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2017. It was further observed that the factum of earlier dismissal of the claim petition was not mentioned properly in the second claim petition and amounts to concealment of material facts.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal, as the same deprives the appellants of their statutory right to seek compensation. It is submitted that vide the impugned order, learned Commissioner erred in concluding that the second claim application filed on behalf of the appellants was barred by principles of res-judicata.

6. As noted above, this Court is constrained to note that though the appellants first claim application was permitted to be withdrawn albeit without granting liberty although the same was prayed for. The second claim application came to be dismissed on the ground by applying the principles of res-judicata. A perusal of the impugned order would show that though the learned Commissioner noted the facts of the case, however the claim application was not considered on merits but was rather dismissed on the aforesaid sole ground by a non-speaking order.

7. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken the view that reasons form the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement, and as such, the importance of citing reasons in an order cannot be gainsaid. To elucidate, in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it was opined as follows:

“40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, r