Mahaliamman Temple Trust vs Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-Cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The writ-petitioner is an opposite party in workmen''s compensation case No. 19 of 2008 pending before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore. Before the Commissioner, the second respondent, who is a claimant filed an application in I.A. No. 31 of 2009, seeking to implead the third respondent as the second opposite party in the workmen compensation case filed by her. The case of the second respondent, as set out in the application for impleadment was that the third respondent is a contractor, who undertook to execute the contract work on behalf of the petitioner.

The said impleadment was resisted by the writ petition on three grounds. Firstly, when the petitioner opposite party was giving evidence and the matter was posted for cross-examination, when the case was almost come to close, this application was filed. Secondly, question of impleadment of a new party at the time of cross-examining the petitioner''s witness is to fill up the lacunae in the claim made by the second respondent. Thirdly, the correct address and description of the third respondent is not given in the Poomalur Village, in which the third respondent is supposed to reside. There are 10000 persons, 30 streets comprising of 10 wards. Door number of the residence of the person has not been mentioned. Therefore, he may be a fictitious person and there is no such person by name Gnanasekar, son of Mandis in the village.

After detailed argument, the first respondent Commissioner passed an order, dated 2 November, 2009, and allowed the impleadment. The Commissioner held that the presence of the third respondent is absolutely necessary for effective adjudication of the claim. It is not necessary to go into the other reasons given by the Commissioner, as it may ultimately prejudice the case of the petitioner. It is suffice to state that the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has the power of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, u/s 23 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, at any point of time, it is open to the authorities to bring any parties who are necessary and proper parties and such an order does not prejudice the case of either of the parties. On the other hand, the position of Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner under the Act is not merely that of a quasi-judicial authority, but he is also having power to investigate under the Act in order to secure just compensation for the victims.

Further, in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, time and again it has been emphasised that the Court should not interfere with the preliminary orders, thereby dragging the matters forever without final adjudication. Admittedly, if the petitioner has to suffer on any grounds, which are raised in the writ petition, he can always file an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act to this Court. The petitioner need not apprehend at this stage with his contention that the third respondent who is allegedly a fictitious person can never be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. Both the Workmen''s Compensation Act read with CPC gives ample opportunity for the petitioner to establish the identity of the third respondent and further contesting the case. It must be noted that the evidence of the petitioner is yet to conclude. Therefore, he can always take out appropriate application including summoning of the third respondent. It is suffice to state that this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the preliminary stage. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.