P.C. Jain, J.-In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25th May, 1988, passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur in Case No. W.C.C.F.6/85, wherein Koili, Munni, Lalli and Keshar have filed a compensation claim against Kanhaiya Lal son of Murlidhar in the Court of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. Krishna Lime Works, Chaksu is running an establishment for manufacturing of lime, situated at Kotkhawada Road, Malorai Ki Bagichi, Chaksu, of which Kanhaiya Lal is the sole proprietor. The case of the non-petitioners before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner against M/s. Krishna Lime Works, Chaksu was that deceased Gaindilal was a workman in the petitioner’s establishment. He was drawing wages of Rs. 600/-p.m. and during the course of employment he died. The claim was filed by the respondents who are said to be the dependants of deceased Gaindilal in form ‘G’ under Rule 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules before the Commissioner for Compensation. The petitioner filed a reply to the claim petition. Both the parties produced their evidence in support of their case. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner by his order dated 25th May, 1988, awarded a sum of Rs. 52,058.40 as compensation to the respondents. In the impugned order, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has recorded a finding that the deceased was a workman and he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The learned Commissioner also recorded a finding that at the time of his death the deceased, Gaindilal, was drawing a salary of Rs. 600/-per month. The deceased died on 30th November, 1984. Deceased Gaindilal died on account of exhaustion due to carbon monoxide gas while he was at the site and where he fell in limekiln.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for inssuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25th May, 1988, passed by respondent No. 1. The case was fixed for admission on 30th August, 1988. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner, dated 25th May, 1988, on various grounds. We do not want to go into the various grounds, which the petitioner has taken in the writ petition as in our opinion the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that an alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is available to the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Kala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act is not an adequate alternative remedy as in the event of filing an appeal, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation awarded to the non- petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Kala has placed reliance on Barn Ram vs. Labour Officer, Sonepat, 1985 ACJ 147(P&H), which in turn takes support from Hinimatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR) 1954 SC 403.

4. Before examining the merits of the contentions raised by Mr.Kala, learned cousel for the petitioner, we would like to discuss, in short, the scope ofjudicial remedies provided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 stipulates issuance of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, or for any other purpose. Principally the judicial remedies which are generally made use of against acts, orders or awards of the authorities administering law, are the directions, orders or writs in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto. Habeas corpus is also one of the remedies under Article 226. However, it is designed to offer immediate relief from illegal confinement or restraint and used for negation of right to personal liberty. Mandamus can be issued t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document