Shri Vijay Singh was working as Work Supervisor in the J. K. P. C. C and posted at Gandoh Tehsil Bhalesa District Doda. On October 30, 1987 he was deputed on official duty to Udhampur Divisional office and while proceeding to that place the bus in which he was traveling halted at Khaleni, a place between Doda and Batote, due to road blockade where a shooting stone, because of blasting, hit him resulting serious bodily injuries, due to which he died on spot. His widow, Smt. Nirmal Kumari, respondent No. 2 herein, filed application under Workmens Compensation Act before the Commissioner, under the said Act for grant of compensation and that Court after adjudicating upon the matter on June 30, 1989 ordered grant of compensation of Rs. 78510. 08. Aggrieved by that order petitioner herein has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India for quashing the said award.

The main plea which the petitioner has taken in this petition in invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court is that the deceased husband of respondent No. 2 was not a workman as defined under Workmens Compensation Act. (Act hereafter), as he was neither a manual worker nor a skilled worker nor a technician nor operator of any mechanical device used for the construction purposes. It has further been averred in the petition that being a supervisor the deceased had to supervise the construction work like all other higher officers i.e. Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Asstt. Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers.

Respondent No. 2 has filed objections to the writ petition stating therein that under the provisions of the Act the remedy against the award was to prefer appeal within the stipulated period of sixty days after depositing the amount of award with respondent No. 1 but the petitioner instead of availing that remedy has filed writ petition in order to cross the bar of limitation as well as that of depositing the amount of award. She has challenged action of the petitioner in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the court when alternate remedy was available. She has further stated that the petitioner has raised factual points for the first time in the writ petition and in fact the deceased had been engaged for constructional work in the State of J&K. She has also shown her helplessness to carry on with two minor daughters.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Commissioner under the Act posted at Jammu has awarded compensation to the widow of the deceased under the provisions of the Act after hearing both the sides. Sec. 30 of the Act lays down a provision for filing appeal against, the order of the Commissioner under the Act and under clause (2) of that section period of limitation for filing appeal provided is sixty days. Under proviso to clause (1) of the said section no appeal by an employer shall lie unless memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. The petitioner being employer of the deceased did not choose to avail this remedy of appeal. It is also clear from record that the petitioner did not deposit the amount of compensation before approaching this court even. Present petition was filed on Oct. 19. 1989 i. e. after 110 days. The petition has thus been filed after expiry of period of limitation.

Mr. Kotwal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Vijay Singh deceased was not a workman as defined under the Act and the Commissioner under the Act committed illegality in awarding compensation to him and because of the illegal action the petitioner had remedy to approach this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction Mr. Bhardwaj learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has controverted the argument of Mr. Kotwal by pointing out that the deceased was certainly a workman as he was engaged besides supervising work, for constructional wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document