Kana Ram vs Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Another

Amitava Roy, C.J.—The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 17.9.2013 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6794/2005. We have heard Mr. V.L. Mathur with Mr. Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner.

Facts in bare minimum are that an application was filed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Ajmer by the respondent No. 2 herein seeking compensation for the injury sustained by him during the course of his employment under the appellant/writ petitioner, being engaged in digging of a well owned by him (appellant/writ petitioner). In his written statement in the proceedings registered on the said application under the Act, the appellant/writ petitioner, while denying his liability, chiefly pleaded that he was neither the owner of the well nor was the respondent No. 2 (applicant) a workman under him within the meaning of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Ajmer however, on a scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, concluded that at the time of the accident resulting in his injuries, the respondent No. 2/applicant was in the employment of the appellant/writ petitioner and was engaged in the work of digging a well situated at NH-4, Gegal. According to the said authority, the dispute with regard to the ownership of the well in view of this finding based on the materials on record, was wholly insignificant. Being dissatisfied with this determination, the appellant/writ petitioner instituted the writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which by the impugned judgment and order has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal u/s 30 of the Act.

Mr. Mathur has urged that as availability of an alternative remedy per se does not invariably debar this Court in an appropriate case to exercise its writ jurisdiction, the impugned judgment and order in the attendant facts and circumstances, ought to be interfered with. While contending that a separate application has been filed on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner to introduce further documents to demonstrate that at all relevant times, neither the well in question was owned by him (appellant/writ petitioner) nor the respondent No. 2 had been engaged thereat as his (appellant/writ petitioner) workman, Mr. Mathur has urged that this factual aspect ought to be examined by this Court in the appeal in the interest of justice.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and on a consideration of the materials on record as a whole, we are left unpersuaded to entertain the present challenge.

A perusal of the award passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Ajmer, would reveal that the finding that respondent No. 2 had been engaged, at the time of the accident, in digging of the well at NH-4, Gegal as workman of the appellant/writ petitioner, is wholly based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced, and more importantly, qua an issue framed to answer this debate. Not only, it is a finding of fact based on the materials laid before the said authority, the conclusion arrived at, is as a consequence of the correct analysis thereof. The deduction that the respondent No. 2, at the time of the accident, had been engaged as a workman of the appellant/writ petitioner was inconsequential, according to us, is not in defiance of logic.

Admittedly, an appeal u/s 30 of the Act lay against the award of the learned Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Ajmer, but has not been availed of by the appellant/writ petitioner. His plea of financial stringency is both unconvincing and inadequate. Though it cannot be gainsaid that existence of alternative remedy ipso facto does not debar the writ court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a power ought to be sparingly exercised. In our comprehension, the present case is not one of that exceptional category. Further, contentious factual aspects are also involved.

In this backdrop, we are also not inclined to accept the request for bringing on records the additional documents at this belated stage. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.