A party aggrieved by an ex parte order is entitled to seek reconsideration and an opportunity to be heard.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein was the respondent in certain proceedings before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Peermade, Idukki. In ECC No. 49/2015, a claim was raised by the respondent herein seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her late husband while working on a building under construction belonging to the petitioner herein.

2. According to the petitioner, on receipt of notice from the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, he appeared before the authority and engaged a lawyer to contest the case on his behalf. It is submitted that it was only when the petitioner received Ext.P1 proceedings for the execution of the award passed by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner that he came to realise that the main proceedings had already been disposed of. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner applied for and obtained Ext.P2 order, which shows that the matter was decided ex parte. The petitioner then filed Ext.P3 application for setting aside the ex parte order and has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition, seeking a direction to consider Ext.P3 and to stay the execution proceedings in the meanwhile.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the petitioner is in any manner aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has to approach this Court under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act , 1923, and a writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforesaid is not maintainable.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition, as he is only seeking a consideration of Ext.P3 application filed for setting aside the ex parte order. It is clear from a reading of Ext.P2 order that the petitioner had appeared before the authority on receipt of summons and had also engaged an advocate to represent him in the proceedings. It is also clear from the order that the advocate entrusted by the petitioner had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner but thereafter failed to appear and contest the case. I am of the opinion that, in such circumstances, it is only appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Peermade, Idukki, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent shall appear before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Peermade, either by themselves or through an authorised agent at 11.00 A.M on 12-03-2026, and thereafter, the matter shall be considered and disposed of by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Peermade, in accordance with the law. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, the execution proceedings for enforcement of Ext.P2 order shall remain suspended. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and it will be open to the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner to take a decision on Ext.P3 in accordance with the law. The Employees’ Compensation Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of Ext.P3 application, as directed above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-