IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'employer' and the liability of principal employers under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition seek to challenge the ex- parte impugned order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Labour Department, GNCTD, (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation to respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The petitioners are also assailing the order dated 11.11.2021, whereby the petitioners' application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned award has been passed ex-parte and there is no material available on record to infer that notice of the claim petition filed by the respondent/original claimant was served upon the present petitioners.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also points out that the husband of the claimant i.e. respondent no.1 was employed by Prasenjit Dolui, i.e. respondent No.2 in the present petition. He, therefore, submits that during the pendency of the claim petition and on a statement given by respondent No.2, the present petitioners were arrayed as parties. The summons were directed to be issued to them, without there being any reason recorded in the order sheet for their impleadment.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, then, contends that the summons, which were sent via Speed Post were never received by the present petitioners and the Court, without extending any opportunity of hearing, proceeded ex-parte and awarded a compensation of .6,77,760/- along with interest @ 12% and a penalty of 50% of the awarded compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if the entire material on record is carefully perused, the same would indicate that respondent No.2 was the principal employer of respondent No.1- Sh. Shaukat Ali (deceased) who was the husband of the claimant- Ms. Nazmun Nisha. The claimant herself had admitted in her statement that her husband was employed by respondent No.2. In the absence of there being any evidence that the petitioners had ever engaged the services of claimant's husband, the petitioners should not have been held liable, jointly or severally for the compensation.

6. He further submits that even in the FIR, the facts have come on record that there were two other co-workers who had also deposed that the claimant's husband was employed by respondent No.2. He, therefore, submits that had an appropriate opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners, they would have satisfied the Commissioner that they were not liable for any compensation on account of death of the husband of the claimant.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the order passed by the Commissioner is strictly, in accordance with law, and the application for setting aside the ex-parte order has also been rightly rejected.

8. He further submits that there is always a presumption of service of notice issued by registered post. He, then contends that in the instant case, the aforesaid fact has been noted by the Commissioner that the summons were issued to the petitioners by speed post on the correct address and were not returned unserved, based on which, the petitioners were proceeded ex- parte. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.A. Mohamed Ismail v. State Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT 1999 (10) SC 372 and Vrinda Pareek (Minor) Through Guardian v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 438, decisions of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Yogesh Jain and Anr. v. Rakesh Jain and Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7909 and Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Prime Cable Industries v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, 2023 SCC Online Del 1641 to supplement his stand that there is always a