JOSHI, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Kalyan Singh wherein he has prayed for quashing the order of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner Jodhpur, the non-petitioner No. 2, dated 30th of April, 1973, and his award dated 30th of November, 1973, under Workmens Compensation Act and further prayed to send the case back to the non petitioner No. 2 to decide it after giving an applicant opportunity of being heard.

2. The facts which are relevant and are material for the disposal of this petition are as follows :

3. Non-petitioner No. 1 Dhannaram made an application to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner alleging that his son Mohanlal was in employ of Kalyansingh the petitioner. Dhannaram alleged in his application that Mohan Lal received some injuries in the course of his employment on 20th of February, 1972 as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries on 12 3 72 in M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur Dhannaram Put in a compensation claim before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The Workmens Compensation Commissioner issued notices on two occasions to Kalyansingh but the same could not be personally served upon him. The Commissioner then ordered for substituted service and simultaneously issued a notice which was sent through registered post. The notice was also published in "Prajasewak" a weekly news-paper of Jodhpur in its issue dated 13th of September, 1972 The notice sent under registered cover was however returned with the remark "left without address" The learned Commissioner held the service sufficient and proceeded with the case exparte. After taking evidence he allowed non petitioner No 2 Dhannarams claim for a sum of Rs. 7.000/- by his order dated 30th of November 1972 and directed Kalyansingh to deposit the sum of Rs. 7,000/- in his court as compensation for disbursement amongst the heirs of deceased Mohanlal. This order was served upon Kalyansingh petitioner on 2-2 73. It is alleged that on service of this notice Kalyansingh engaged a counsel and got the record of the case inspected and thereafter moved an application under O. 9 r. 13 C.P.C. on 13th of February, 1973 before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner inter alia on the ground that no personal service was effected upon him and further substituted service was ordered although condition for issuance of such service did not exist so the same was bad in law. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the exparte order as well as the award and prayed for rehearing of the claim application after giving opportunity to him. The application under O. 9 r. 13 C.P.C. was resisted by Dhannaram. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties dismissed the application of Kalyansingh petitioner by his order dated 30th of April, 1973.

4. Being aggrieved, petitioner Kalyansingh moved an application designating it as S.B. Civil Revision under section 115 C.P.C. and in the alternative Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The office raised objection wherein it demanded from the learned counsel for Kalyan Singh to state precisely as to whether his petition was a revision application under section 115 C.P.C. or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner did not meet the office objection therefore the case was laid before Lodha J as a defective case on 21st of Sept., 1973. The learned counsel for Kalyan Singh on that day too was unable to make up his mind whether the case was to be treated as a writ petition. Or a revision petition Lodha J. therefore recorded the order saying that it may be put up as and when the learned counsel for Kalyansingh makes an application as to how he wanted the case to be treated. The case came again before Gattani J on 15-10-73. On that day Mr. M.D. Calla, learned counsel for Kalyansingh, expressed his desire that the case be treated as revision under section 115 C.P.C. It was accordingly ordered and the case was regis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document