Parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, especially under exceptional circumstances like pandemics that hinder traditional litigation processes.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The present petition challenges the impugned orders dated 14th August, 2020, 18th September, 2020 and 29th September, 2020, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter "the Act"), by which the evidence of the Petitioner has been closed/struck off and the Respondent has been awarded a compensation of Rs.7,51,056/- by the Commissioner.

3. The Respondent - Mr. Bhikho Ram was employed as a labourer with the Petitioner. He suffered personal injury due to an accident and the injury led to his right leg becoming dysfunctional. The Petitioner is in the marble business and the labourer was lifting marble slabs when he suffered this injury. He accordingly sought compensation under the Act. The pleadings were completed in the matter and on 28th February, 2020, the ld. counsel for the Petitioner had conducted the cross-examination of the Respondent.

4. On 20th March, 2020, the cross-examination of the witness of the Respondent was conducted by the counsel and the matter was adjourned to 2nd June, 2020, which is when the pandemic COVID-19 broke out and lockdowns were declared across India. Thus, the Petitioner could not lead evidence thereafter and the matter was repeatedly adjourned on 2nd June, 2020, 3rd July, 2020, 7th August, 2020. Finally, vide order dated 14th August, 2020, the evidence of the Petitioner was struck off. The matter was then heard on 28th August, 2020, 4th September, 2020 and 11th September, 2020 and was reserved for orders. On 18th September, 2020, Rs.50,000/- was imposed as costs on the Petitioner since he had been seeking adjournments on the last two or three dates, and the matter was reserved for orders. Finally, the award was passed on 29th September, 2020, in the following terms:

"But keeping in view the entirety of situation, I am of the view that the earning capacity of the labourer is adjudged to have been reduced to 50% and not 100% as argued. It is also not a case of 20% loss of earning capacity. Hence I hold that the applicant has got the reduction in his earning capacity to 100%. In the given wage, age and loss of earning capacity the applicant/ claimant is entitled to compensation as under:

i) Relevant factor of 49 years : 156.47

ii) 60% of wages @ Rs. 8000/- pm : Rs.4800/-

iii) Amount of compensation

156.47 X 8000 X 60

------------------ : Rs.7,51,056/-

100

10. The claimant is entitled to receive injury compensation from respondent. The claimant is also entitled to interest as per Section 4A of the `Act' @ 12% per annum from 30 days after the accident.

11. Therefore, respondent i.e., M/s A-Class Marble India Pvt. Ltd., 68/2, Najafgarh Road, DLE Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015, us directed to deposit before this Authority an amount of Rs. 7,51,056/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Fifty Six Only) on account of compensation payable to the claimant along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 02.03.2019 till its realization through pay order in favour of "Commissioner, Employees' Compensation-IX" within a period of 30 days from pronouncement of the order before this Authority."

5. The submission of ld. counsel for the Petitioner - Mr. Chadha is that during the lockdown and the pandemic, no adverse orders could have been passed, on account of non-appearance before the Commissioner. He relies upon various circulars issued by the High Court of Delhi in this regard. He further submits that the Commissioner did not have facilities for conducting online hearing and hence the Petitioner could not seek a virtual hearing before the Commissioner. He fur