Central Bank of India vs Smt. Munni Devi and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—List is revised. None has appeared for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Y.K. Sinha is present.

Sri Sinha has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 23.2.2007, wherein this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 lacks before the Commissioner Workmens'' Compensation, Bareilly. The said order is reproduced herein below;

List this matter on 15.3.2007, by which time the petitioner will deposit Rs. 2 lacs before the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation, Bareilly and submit proof before this Court. The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn.

There is no material on the record to indicate that the petitioner has complied with the order of this Court dated 23.2.2007. Sri Sinha has submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed against the interlocutory order deciding the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner Workmens'' Compensation Act. He further contended that the said legal issue is already settled by the Supreme Court in the Case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. & others, 1983 (47) F.L.R. 477.

The relevant parts of the judgment is quoted herein below;

Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions musttherefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is reallynecessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After alltribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiouslyspecial kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifledby all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down. It is alsoworth while remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarilysupervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to dosubstantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise ofjurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues".

It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devicesadopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits.We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invitedecision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimesfor over a decade.

Sri Y.K.Sinha further placed reliance on the judgment of U.P. Co-operative Union and others v. Prabhu Dayal Srivastava and others reported in 1988 (57) FLR 70, State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur and others reported in State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder and Others, and in M.C.D. Vs. Nand Kishore, .

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 moved an application under the Proviso of Workmens'' Compensation Act, on the ground that her son Umesh Chandra Shukla, who was employed as Peon/Daftari in the Central Bank of India, Shyam Ganj, Bareilly and while, on duty he was found missing. The said application was registered as Case No. 130/ W.C.A/2003, Smt. Munni Deve v. Central Bank of India. The petitioner bank raised preliminary objection with regard to the applicability of the provision of the Workmens'' Compensation Act in the case. The said preliminary objection was rejected by the respondent no. 2 by order dated 20.12.2004. The petitioner bank has filed the present writ petition against the said order. This Court on 19.1.2005 was pleased to stay the further proceedings in Case No. 130/W.C.A./2003. As stated above, on 23.2.2007, the interim order was modified and the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lacs before 15.3.1997. On the record of the case, there is no affidavit or receipt with regard to the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. The proceedings before Workmens'' Compensation Tribunal is stayed for the last six years. On the record, there are several applications filed by respondent no. 1 for the early hearing of the matter. In my judgment, in the peculiar facts of the case dismissal of the Writ Petition for want of prosecution would not serve the interest of the justice.

There are two more compelling reasons for deciding the writ petition, (i) the respondent no. 1 is about 80 years old lady. She has lost her son and the proceedings are still pending for the last more than six years in this Court and (ii) the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court dated 23.2.2007.

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. The proceedings of Case No. 130/W.C.A./2003 shall continue. The respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

It is made clear that the issue raised by the petitioner shall be considered at the time of hearing, as this Court has not expressed any opinion on the said issue. The respondent no. 1 would not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.