In the absence of any specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no imperative duty on the Court to issue a fresh notice to the defendant in all cases where the Advocate appearing for the defendant withdraws from the case or pleads no instructions.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This revision petition has been placed before the Division Bench in order to decide the question whether it is imperative for the Court in all cases to give a fresh notice to the defendant where the Advocate appearing for the defendant withdraws from the case or pleads no instructions.

2. Brief facts :-

Respondent-Smt. Daryai widow of Devi Sahai filed an application under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 claiming Rs. Two lacs as compensation along with penalty and interest on account of death of her husband during the course of employment under petitioner-Suresh Kumar. She was represented by Shri D.C. Gupta, Advocate of Gurgaon. After considering the contents of the application, the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Gurgaon issued notice to the opposite parties. Respondent-Kartar Singh filed a written statement and denied the existence of relationship of employer and employee between him and the deceased. Kartar Singh also stated that he was not the owner of van No. DNH-9990 which had met with accident on 13.5.1990 resulting in the death of Mohan Pal. The Oriental Insurance Company also filed written statement and denied its liability. Petitioner-Suresh Kumar who was respondent No.2 before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner was initially represented by Shri P.R.Yadav, Advocate. However, he did not file written statement and subsequently neither respondent no. 2 (petitioner herein) nor his counsel appeared to contest the case. On 13.3.1991, the Workmens Compensation Commissioner passed an order for exparte proceedings. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed five issues. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. After hearing the parties, the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Gurgaon passed order dated 9.3.1994 and directed petitioner-Suresh Kumar to pay Rs. 89,084/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of penalty. Interest at the rate of six per cent per annum was also awarded to Smt. Daryai Devi. After six months and 18 days of the passing of the order dated 9.3.1994, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside exparte order on the ground that although he had appointed Shri P.R. Yadav, Advocate as his counsel but on 13.3.91, Shri Yadav made a statement that he had no instructions from the client and, therefore, it was necessary for the Workmens Compensation Commissioner to have sent a notice to him and the proceedings held after 13.3.1991 were illegal because no such notice was given to him (petitioner-applicant). The Workmens Compensation Commissioner held that the application was filed much after expiry of the period of limitation and that there was no ground to set aside the order dated 9.3.1994.

3. When the matter came up for hearing before one of us (T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the counsel appearing for the petitioner had pleaded no instructions, it was the duty of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner to give fresh notice to the petitioner and failure on the part of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner to do so, has the effect of vitiating the order dated 9.3.1994. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Tahil Ram v. Ram Chand, AIR 1993 S.C. 1182 and also on a judgment of this Court in Kirpal Kaur v. Kulwant Kaur, (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 689. Learned Single Judge considered the submissions and opined that the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahil Rams case (supra) cannot be considered as laying down a proposition of law that in every case where the counsel pleads no instructions, the Court is under a duty to issue fresh notice to the party to whom that counsel was representing earlier. Learned Single Judge also expressed his disagreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Kirpal Kaurs case (supra) and made reference to the larger Bench.

4. Shri R.S. Sihota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated his submissions which he had adva