The court upheld the need for equitable consideration in granting opportunities for defense, especially under pandemic constraints, while ensuring compensation payments to injured parties.

JUDGMENT

[Physical hearing/Hybrid hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. This is an appeal directed against that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2021, passed in W.P.(C) No.3781/2021, whereby, the appellant-company has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

1.1. Via the aforementioned writ petition, the appellant-company had assailed the orders dated 14.08.2020, 18.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 passed by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [in short "the 1923 Act"].

1.2. The Commissioner, vide order dated 29.09.2020, awarded, by way of compensation to the respondent Rs.7,51,056/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 02.03.2019 till the date of realization. The Commissioner, via the said order, gave 30 days to the appellant-company for compliance; commencing from the date when the order was pronounced.

2. Thus, in effect, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, albeit, with one caveat, which is alluded to hereinabove. The caveat being, that the appellant-company has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent, within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

2.1. In short, the grievance that the appellant-company articulated before the learned single judge, essentially, veered around one single issue, which is, that due opportunity to defend the case had not been provided by the Commissioner.

2.2. In this context, the appellant-company brought to fore, dates and events to demonstrate that because the Covid-19 pandemic was raging in the city (which resulted in a lockdown), it could not place its defence before the Commissioner.

2.3. The learned Single Judge, having examined the record and, in particular, the order sheet of each proceeding, agreed that the appellant-company deserves another opportunity to present its defence.

2.4. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following operative directions:

".....8. This Court is convinced that there is no lack of diligence by the Petitioner. However, due to the pandemic, and the constraints faced by counsels, physical hearings could have been difficult during the said period. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to present its case on merits, this Court passes the following directions:

i) The impugned orders dated 14th August 2020, 18th September 2020 and 29th September 2020, are set aside;

ii) The Petitioner shall be given the opportunity to lead evidence before the Commissioner, on two dates fixed for the said purpose subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The payment of the said amount shall be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Commissioner;

iii) No unnecessary adjournments shall be sought by the Petitioner;

iv) The Commissioner, at the end of the adjudication, shall also consider if any litigation expenses/costs ought to be awarded and if so, to what extent...."

(emphasis is ours)

3. Mr Prateek K. Chadha, who appears on behalf of the appellant- company, says that, once the learned Single Judge found that there was "no lack of diligence" displayed by the appellant-company in defending its case, the direction issued for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent, is bereft of both basis and rationale.