The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to parties in legal proceedings and the importance of considering all relevant submissions before passing an order.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Mr. Mohd. Vajid Shahjada, learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

2. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the order dated 7.3.2024, 27.7.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Kalol in Workman Compensation Delay Application No.03 of 2023, with below mentioned relief/s:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the order dated 07-03-2024, 27.7.2023 in Workman Compensation Delay Application No.03 of 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Kalol and thereby condone the delay to restore the restoration application of the petitioner to its original file. At Annex-‘A’ Colly.

(C) Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27-07-2023 in Workman Compensation (Non fatal) Application No.03 of 2015 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Kalol. At Annex- A Colly

(D) Pending the hearing of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the order dated 27-07-2023 in Workman Compensation (Non fatal) Application No.03 of 2015 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Kalol and stay recovery proceedings being W.C. Misc. (Recovery Certificate) No. 2 of 2003 arising out of order dated 27.07.2023 in Workman Compensation (Non fatal) No. 03 of 2015 or direct no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner for execution of recovery application till final disposal of the petition. At Annex-‘A’

Colly (E) Your Lordship may be pleased to call for the records and proceedings.

(F) Your Lordship be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Heard Mr. Tanmay B. Karia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Vajid A.

Shahjada, learned Counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. Karia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without giving proper and sufficient opportunity to petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed in absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the same is bad in law.

4.1 Mr. Karia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the after publication of the impugned award, within period of 3 months, an application was filed. He has further submitted that after filing of the written statement on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate engaged by the petitioner was not remained present and therefore, the same was decided by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, in absence of the learned Advocate. He has further submitted that it is not within the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, as and when the petitioner came to know about the publication of the award, he has preferred delay application. The said application came to be decided against present petitioner.

4.2 In view of the above, Mr. Karia, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, is not in consonance with the settled legal principle and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside and present petition may be allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Shahjada, learned Counsel for the responden