IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and C.M.P. Nos.19473 of 2019 and 10131 of 2022 Palanisamy ..Petitioner(s)

Vs Vasantha ..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, returning the application dated 29.03.2019 in I.A. Sr.No.1094/2019 in W.C.No.257/2011 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, and to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Prabakaran For Respondent(s): Not ready notice

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the return/rejection order dated 29.03.2019 made in I.A. SR. No.1094 of 2019 in W.C. No.257 of 2011 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was running a business in the name and style of Vignesh Industries (now closed) and owned a TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-29-AY-6698. One Kaliappan was employed as a cleaner in the said vehicle. On 30.12.2009, while the vehicle was proceeding from Harur to Kambainallur High Road, near Navalai Village, a tractor bearing Registration No. TN-29-M-0419, coming in the opposite direction, dashed against the vehicle, resulting in the accident. The said Kaliappan sustained injuries and subsequently died on 05.01.2019.

3. It is the further averment that the claimant, being the wife of the deceased, filed a claim petition in W.C. No.257 of 2011 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The petitioner, on receipt of notice, engaged a counsel, but did not effectively participate in the proceedings, allegedly relying upon the assurance of the counsel. Hence, the petitioner was set ex parte on 20.03.2014 and thereafter, an ex parte award came to be passed on 29.09.2016, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,12,111/- fastening liability on the petitioner, while exonerating the Insurance Company.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the deceased was employed as a cleaner and the said fact was not properly brought to the notice of the Tribunal due to negligence on the part of the counsel. Thereafter, upon receipt of notice under the Revenue Recovery Act on 07.01.2019, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with a petition to condone delay of 842 days. However, the said application was returned/rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings had already been initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have entertained the application and decided the same on merits instead of rejecting it on the ground of pendency of revenue recovery proceedings. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the Tribunal failed to note that though the order was passed on merits based on the available records, the petitioner was set ex-parte and therefore, it is an ex-parte decree insofar as petitioner is concerned, who was the main contesting party in the Claim Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available records.

7. On a bare perusal, it is seen that the accident occurred in the year 2009 and the claim petition was filed in the year 2011. The petitioner was set ex parte in the year 2014 and an ex parte award was passed on 29.09.2016. However, no steps were taken by the petitioner to set aside the same within the time prescribed under law. Further, it reveals that the application to set aside the ex- parte award has been filed only in the year 2019, that too after initiation of revenue recovery proceedings, with an inordinate delay of 842 days. The explanation attributing negligence to counsel is not supported by any material and does not constitute sufficient cause.

8. This Court has also perused the award passed by the Tribunal. It is carefully noted that the Tribunal, after fra