SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Raj) 651

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
Executive Engineers P.W.D. National Highway Division, Udaipur and another - Appellant
Versus
Nathi - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 207 of 1990.
Decided On : 19-04-1991

The court held that the non-petitioner-appellants had not shown sufficient cause for their absence on the date fixed for their evidence, that the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award was not condonable, and that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated November 29, 1989.

Headnote:

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 3, 5, 30 - ORDER 9 RULE 13, C.P.C. - RULE 41, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RULES, 1923 - ARTICLE 123, LIMITATION ACT - EX PARTE AWARD - SETTING ASIDE - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent's husband Kamji, a Beldar employed by the non-petitioner-appellants, died in an accident while working on the road. The respondent filed a claim petition under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The non-petitioner-appellants admitted the employment and the accident but denied that it occurred in the course of employment. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner proceeded ex parte against the non-petitioner-appellants and awarded compensation to the respondent. The non-petitioner-appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. read with Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923 to set aside the ex parte award and the order directing ex parte proceedings. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner dismissed the application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the non-petitioner-appellants had not shown sufficient cause for their absence on the date fixed for their evidence and that the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award was not condonable. The court also found that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated November 29, 1989.

Issues: 1. Whether the non-petitioner-appellants had shown sufficient cause for their absence on the date fixed for their evidence? 2. Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award was condonable? 3. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated November 29, 1989?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-petitioner-appellants had not shown sufficient cause for their absence on the date fixed for their evidence. The court noted that the non-petitioner-appellants had not contacted their lawyer after July 3, 1987, the date on which the order directing ex parte proceedings was passed. 2. The court held that the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award was not condonable. The court noted that the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree/award is 30 days from the date of the decree/award and that the non-petitioner-appellants had not filed their application within this period. 3. The court held that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated November 29, 1989.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. - The appeal has been filed under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for setting aside the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur dated November 25,1989, dismissing the application of the non-petitioner-appellants moved under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. read with Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923, the ex parte award dated July 28,1987 and also the order dated July 3,1987 by which it ordered for proceeding ex-parte against the non-petitioner-appellants in the claim petition. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

2. The respondent's husband Kamji was working with the non-petitioner-appellants as the Beldar. While he was working on the road during the course of his employment, he was crushed by the truck No. RRQ 3312 of the Contractor. A claim petition was filed under Section 3 of the Act against the non-petitioner-appellants. In the reply, they admitted that he was working as a Beldar on monthly wages of Rs. 663/-, he met with an accident and as a result thereof he died on December 15,1985. It was further averred that the accident did not occur in the course of employment. July 3,1987 was fixed for the petitioner's evidence. On that day none was present for and on behalf of the non-petitioner-appellants. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner proceeded ex parte and recorded the evidence of the petitioner-respondents. He heard arguments on July 20,1987 and passed order on July 28, 1987 awarding Rs. 76,963,65 p. as compensation.

3. On November 24,1987, the appellants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. read with Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923 for setting aside ex parte award along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Affidavits of Akhiluddin, Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Kherwara Sub-Division, Yogendra Swaroop Mathur Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Mahua Sub-Division and Jamunashanker Dave, Executive Engineer, National Highway, Udaipur Division, photostat copy of the caused leave application of Yogendra Swaroop Mathur and transfer order dated August 26,1987 have been filed in support of the application. The petitioner-respondent filed replies seriously opposing it. After hearing the parties the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur dismissed the application by his order dated November 25,1989.

4. It has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seriously erred in not setting aside the order dated July 3, 1987 award dated My 28,1987 and also order dated November 24, 1987 despite the fact that sufficient cause was shown or the absence of the non-petitioner-appellants on July 3, 1987. He also contended that the non-petitioner-appellants No. 2 Shri Mathur proceeded on privilege leave and subsequently he was transferred therefrom and as such application for setting aside the order dated July 3, 1987 and award dated July 28,1987 could not be moved earlier and the non-petitioner-appellants could know about the ex parte order only after the receipt of the copy thereof on November 14,1987. He lastly contended that the aforesaid documents and affidavits duly support the application moved for setting aside the said order and ex parte award.

5. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Shri Akhiluddin, Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Kherwara Sub-Division has stated in para No. 1 of his affidavit that Shri Y.S. Mathur, Assistant Engineer was transferred from Kherwara Sub-Division to Bheem Sub-Division, he succeeded him and on August 28,1987, he assumed the charge. He has further stated that no action could be taken in the said case by him as he was not aware of it. Shri Y.S. Mathur has stated in para No. 2 of his affidavit that he was Assistant Engineer, Kherwara Sub-Division from September 18,1986 to August 28, 1987. There is order No. 280 dated April 14, 1986 of the E








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top