The court affirmed that under the Employees Compensation Act, the restoration of an employee's claim petition is permissible to uphold justice for the weaker section, but cautioned against repeated forum shopping.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 11th February 2020 and 23rd February 2021, passed by the ld. Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Karampura, New Delhi, by which, the ld. Commissioner has permitted the Respondent No. 1-Employee to restore his case for compensation, which was originally withdrawn by him.

3. The brief background of the matter is that a commercial insurance policy was issued by the Petitioner in respect of a commercial vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1GC-2298. As per the version of the Respondent No. 1-Employee, he was employed as a cleaner of the said vehicle and on 26th November, 2014, he was hit by an unknown vehicle, while replacing the punctured tyre of the insured vehicle, due to which, he was injured on his left leg. Accordingly, a claim application was originally filed by him in front of the ld. Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 at Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. In the said claim application, a written statement was also filed by the Insurance Company, however thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Commissioner, District North-East, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi. On 17th March 2017, the employee filed an application before the ld. Commissioner for withdrawal of his claim petition. The said application, which is a short one, reads as under:

"1. The above case was filed for seeking injury compensation before this Hon'ble Court and the injury was caused out of and during the course of employment.

2. That the due to technical reason as also the inconvenience of the applicant, he intends to withdraw the instant claim petition. Hence, prayed accordingly to withdraw the same."

4. With respect to this application, the ld. Commissioner, on 17th March 2017, passed an order to the following effect:

"Claimant has filed an application for withdrawal of the claim petition.

Heard

Claim petition dismissed as withdrawn. No liberty given."

5. As is clear from the said application filed by the employee, the reason for withdrawal was an alleged technical reason and inconvenience of the Applicant. The order for dismissing the claim petition clearly records that the same is dismissed as withdrawn and that no liberty was given to the employee, in respect of the said application.

6. Thereafter, a fresh claim petition has been filed by the employee, with the ld. Commissioner, Karampura, claiming compensation under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, in respect of the same incident. Again, written statement was filed by the Insurance Company in the matter, and vide order dated 18th October 2017, the ld. Commissioner held that the said fresh application cannot be heard in view of the earlier dismissal/withdrawal order dated 17th March 2017. The said order dated 18th October, 2017, reads as under:-

"R1 reply filed. Copy received to claimant advocate.

Matter adjourned for WS. Issue notice to R2, at this stage in view of order dt. 26.07.2017 it is not required to issue R2. Since matter has been disposed off by the Ld. Commissioner, Prateek Chandra vide order dated 17.03.2017. Since, matter already disposed off. Hence, no steps are required in the matter. This Court remedy available under the Act to petitioner for appeal if so desire.

So, accordingly matter disposed off."

7. The above extracted order passed by the ld. Commissioner in claim petition No. WC/30/WD/17, was challenged by the Respondent No. 1- Employee, in FAO 373/2018 titled Nanak Chand v. M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. In the said appeal, the employee, once again, sought