IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

121 CR-7569-2024(O&M)

Date of order: 07.01.2025 M/s Hare Krishna Steels …..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Smt. Sadhna & Others …..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surinder Kumar Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

29.04.2024 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Commissioner, whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P2) and ex-parte Award dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-II, Panipat, is dismissed; AND for allowing the application of petitioner (Annexure P4) filed before the learned Commissioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was unable to appear on 25.04.2022 as inadvertently the counsel for the petitioner had noted down the wrong date in the case. It is argued that accordingly, the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte; and therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned ex-parte order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P2) and ex-parte Award dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P3), and the order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Commissioner, be set aside.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants/respondents herein had filed a claim application under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the petitioner on the ground that the deceased namely Ashok Kumar/husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3, was working in the petitioner’s shop/firm. On 18.08.2017, Ashok Kumar had suffered heart attack due to heavy work in the shop; and had expired thereafter. As such, the respondents had filed claim petition under Section 4 of the Act before the learned Commissioner. On 25.04.2022, when the matter was fixed before the learned Commissioner for evidence of the claimants, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. As such, vide order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P2), the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, after conclusion of evidence, ex parte Award dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P4), was passed against the petitioner. Intimation in respect of this Award was sent to the petitioner on 04.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed present application on 28.11.2022 (Annexure P4) for setting aside ex parte order dated 25.04.2022; and for setting aside order dated 26.04.2022 whereby ex parte evidence of the claimants was concluded; and for setting aside final Award dated 29.04.2022. Upon notice, the respondents/claimants had duly appeared and filed reply; whereupon vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P1), the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. A perusal of the application (Annexure P4) as also the present petition as also during the hearing at the Bar, the only argument raised by the petitioner is that he was unable to appear on 25.04.2022 as the learned counsel for the petitioner had noted down the wrong date. However, there is no information whatsoever forthcoming from the record as to what was the ‘wrong’ date noted by the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Commissioner. Even on a direct Court query, the ld.counsel for the petitioner is unable to give any information in this respect. As such, this casts a shadow of doubt on the sole plea raised by the petitioner.

7. The above plea of the petitioner is further falsified from the fact that as per the record, intimation in respect of the Award dated 29.4.2022 was sent to the petitioner on 4.5.2022. However, present application (An