The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing reasons in orders, granting liberty when allowing withdrawal of claim petitions, and interpreting labor statutes as beneficial legislation for the welfare of employees.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') on behalf of the appellant/claimant assailing the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation Act, District- West, Karampura, Delhi in Case No. WC/31/WD/17.

2. In his petition(s) filed before the learned Commissioner for compensation under Section 22 of the Act, the appellant claimed that he was employed as a driver with respondent No.1 on vehicle bearing No. UP-78-CN-8951 (Truck) and on 01.09.2015, he met with an accident while driving the truck during the course of employment.

It was the case of the appellant that the accident had occurred on account of poor visibility near Barabanki, UP, as while he was driving over a flyover, construction dust in the air caused his vehicle to ram into another vehicle which was stranded on the bridge without any caution/signal or indicator etc.

It was further claimed that as he had received grievous injuries on both his legs due to the accident, for which he also remained hospitalized, the appellant had become 100% disabled for the purpose of employment as a driver. It was also claimed that he was getting wages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month plus Rs.200/- as food allowance.

3. The appellant preferred his first claim petition before the concerned Commissioner on 12.08.2016. However, on 07.03.2017, he submitted an application for withdrawal of the claim petition. The claim petition was permitted to be withdrawn by the concerned Commissioner on 07.03.2017, but “no liberty was granted”. Later, on 27.03.2017, the appellant preferred a second claim application before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, West District, Karampura, New Delhi by way of ECA No.31/17, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that while granting permission to withdraw the earlier claim petition, the concerned Commissioner had not granted liberty to the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by contending that the order is illegal, as the same deprived the appellant of his statutory right to seek compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. Record of the proceedings before this Court would show that notice to respondent No.2 stands served.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. A perusal of the case records would show that the appellant’s first compensation application filed before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Distt. East/North-East, Vishkarma Nagar, Delhi was permitted to be withdrawn on account of an application filed on his behalf. In the withdrawal application, it was averred by the appellant that the compensation application is being withdrawn on account of technical reasons as also his inconvenience. This Court is constrained to note that though the appellant’s first claim application was permitted to be withdrawn, “no liberty was granted”.

8. The appellant’s second claim application was filed before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, West District, Karampura, New Delhi and the same was also dismissed on a short ground by way of a cryptic order holding that at the time of earlier withdrawal, no liberty was granted. This Court is constrained to note that neither the appellant's application was considered on merits nor any reason was given to deny liberty.

9. 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 v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others reported as (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, recorded in