The Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act must adhere to CPC provisions for setting aside ex-parte Awards, ensuring due process and the right to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Sahil Gupta seeks issuance of appropriate Writ, Order or direction, including a ‘Writ of Certiorari’, thereby quashing the ex-parte Award dated 11th of July, 2018 (for short ‘the impugned Award’) passed in a claim Petition titled ‘Masooda v. Sahil Gupta & Ors.’ by the Respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner, as Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Commissioner’), together with Order dated 12th of February, 2022 passed by him, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner seeking setting aside of the ex-parte Award dated 11th of July, 2018 and with a further ‘Writ of Prohibition’ directing not to act upon the recovery notice No. WC/Sgr/2020/88 dated 22nd of June, 2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 initiated against the Petitioner, for recovery of awarded compensation in the amount of Rs.8,42,594/-.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent No.3 herein, namely, Masooda, filed an application for assessment of compensation, its recovery and payment, asserting therein that her son Mohammad Altaf Lala was an employee with the Respondent-Sahil Gupta, proprietor M/S B. D. Security Pvt. Ltd./ Petitioner herein; that the said son of the Respondent No.3 herein was engaged as a Security Guard by the Petitioner herein and deployed with the Respondent No.2-Jammu & Kashmir Bank at Srinagar for security purposes; that, on 7th of March, 2016, during and in the course of his employment with the Respondents, the said Mohammad Altaf Lala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) received a bullet shot from a weapon (Gun) of the fellow Guard, which pierced into his chest, who was immediately shifted to SKIMS, Soura, by the Bank staff, but unfortunately, the doctors declared him brought dead; that, in this connection, an FIR was got registered at Police Station, Nigeen, Srinagar; that the age of the deceased, at the time of his death, was stated to be 38 years with monthly wages of Rs.7,000.

3. The mother of the deceased-Mohammad Altaf Lala, who is Respondent No.3 in this Petition, filed a case claiming compensation for the death of her son during the employment of Respondent No.1 as a Security Guard before the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation, Act 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Srinagar, who, vide impugned Award dated 11th of July, 2018, granted a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,63,460/-, together with interest @ 12 percent per annum w.e.f. 17th of April, 2016 till 30th of June, 2018 of Rs.1,79,134/-, totaling to Rs.8,32,594/- in favour of the legal dependents of the deceased Mohammad Altaf Lala and, through the award, the direction was issued to the Respondent-Sahil Gupta/Petitioner herein to deposit the aforesaid awarded amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of deposit notice, failing which penalty shall be invoked. The compensation was assessed in terms of Section 4(A) read with Schedule IV of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

4. The Petitioner-Sahil Gupta, having been aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned Award, has challenged the same through the medium of this Writ Petition, inter alia, on the following grounds:

“A. That the impugned order dated 11-07-2018 (Annexure I-A) passed by Respondent No.2 ALC Srinagar in case titled Masooda vs Sahil Gupta & Ors together with impugned order dated 12-2-2020 (Annexure IB) passed by ALC Srinagar rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the exparte judgment dated 11-07-2018 and impugned Recovery notice bearing No. WC/Sgr/2020/88 dated 22-06- 2020 (Annexure I-C) issued by Respondent No.2 Asstt. Labour Commissioner Srinagar and further proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner on the premise of orders impugned and impugned recovery notice being illegal and bad in law and being an outcome of colorable exercise of jurisdiction which is otherwise