Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Asharfi Mehto & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner Under Employees Compansation Act 1923 & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 464 of 2024
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Mandamus - Execution Proceedings - Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 22, Section 31 - The court discussed the scope of law with respect to the issue at hand where the petitioners sought issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus. It highlighted the settled legal principle that the Courts have to be hyper vigilant while issuing a writ of mandamus and the conditions under which a writ of mandamus can be issued. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions against the respondents to expedite the execution proceedings and for execution of the order dated 29th December, 2022, passed in favor of the petitioners by the Commissioner Employees Compensation. The respondents were alleged to have failed to adhere to the law and were causing unjustified delay, leading to irreparable suffering for the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reliefs of expedition of execution proceedings and the execution of the order were being sought at an early stage and necessary steps had already been adopted by the authority concerned. It concluded that there was no grave injustice or mala fide intention on the part of the respondents, and therefore, intervention through a writ of mandamus was not required at that stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged inaction of the respondents in executing the order and the petitioners' plea for directions to expedite the execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the conditions under which a writ of mandamus can be issued, highlighting the need for a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. It also stressed the restricted scope of the writ of mandamus and the requirement for a grave injustice or mala fide intention to warrant intervention.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the instant petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition and it was not inclined to intervene under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:
"a) Against the respondent no. 1 to expedite the proceedings before the respondent no. 2 so that the decreetal amount in terms of case no. cec/sd/d/19/2020 titled as Asharfi Mehto and Ors. Versus Mahesh Kumar Jheria and Ors. be recovered;
b) issue directions to the respondent no. 1 to execute the award sent by respondent no. 1 at the earliest;
And/or
Pass any such further order which this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The relevant facts arising out of the instant petition are as follows:
a. The petitioners are the parents of Sh. Ajay Kumar who was working as a labour at a construction site and expired on duty due to electrocution in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Commissioner Employees Compensation, on 13th October, 2020 under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of death of Late Sh. Ajay Kumar. The said application was registered bearing no. CEC/SD/D/19/2020/35-40.
b. The Commissioner Employee's Compensation (South & South-East) passed an order dated 29th December, 2022, thereby, holding the concerned persons (including the contractor/employer of the deceased) jointly and severally liable and directed them to deposit Rs.8,47,160/- towards compensation along with 12 % interest w.e.f. 2nd September, 2015, till the realization of awarded amount, along with Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as provided under Section 4 (4) and Rs.2,11,790/- towards penalty, i.e., 25% of the awarded amount. It further passed the direction to deposit the abovementioned amount in favour of the Commissioner Employees Compensation VIII within 30 days from the date of the above said order.
c. Due to the non-deposition of the above said amount, the petitioners filed an execution petition dated 27th April, 2023 which was registered vide diary no. 1040/2023. Further, since no developments took place in the said execution petition, the petitioners visited the office of the respondent no. 1, where they were informed that the said petition has gotten misplaced, therefore another copy of the same was submitted by the petitioners on 29th August, 2023.
d. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation (S) issued a recovery certificate on 15th September, 2023, initiating recovery proceedings the deceased's employers/contractors.
e. Being aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions against the respondents to expedite the execution proceedings and for execution of the order dated 29th December, 2022.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' rights are being infringed upon due to the inaction on behalf of the respondents in executing the order dated 29th December, 2022.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners are tasked with the responsibility to provide for their deceased's children and their livelihood is suffering since the petitioners are senior citizen and have no source of income.
5. It is submitted that non-action of the respondents and non-execution of the order within a period of six months from the date of passing of the same is a violation of law. It is submitted that the said act of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified and against the settled law.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners are in dire need of money and due to the unjustified delay on the part of the respondents, grave injury is being caused to the petitioners.
7. It is submitted that after repeated visits by the petitioners, the respondent no. 1 issued a recovery certificate dated 15th September, 2023 which was stated to be sent through internal correspondence to the respondent no. 2, however, no response has been provided by either of the respondents till date with regard t
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted scope of the writ of mandamus and the conditions under which it can be issued, emphasizing the need for a statutory duty and a failu....
Timely execution and recovery of compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, are crucial to fulfill the compassionate intent of the legislation.
A writ petition cannot be maintained when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Court mandates expedited disposal of compensation claims under Employees’ Compensation Act to ensure timely justice.
The limited scope of writ of mandamus and the necessity to establish violation of legal duties or mala fide actions to seek relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ of mandamus can be granted only when there is a statutory duty imposed upon the authority concerned and there is a failure on the part ....
The court can issue a writ of mandamus only when there is a statutory duty and failure to discharge it.
The court emphasized the necessity to demonstrate a violation of legal duties by the respondents to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
The Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act must adhere to CPC provisions for setting aside ex-parte Awards, ensuring due process and the right to be heard.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
